Open Stack

Zane Bitter <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote on 07/01/2014 06:58:47 PM:

> On 01/07/14 15:47, Mike Spreitzer wrote:
> > In AWS, an autoscaling group includes health maintenance functionality
> > --- both an ability to detect basic forms of failures and an ability 
to
> > react properly to failures detected by itself or by a load balancer.
> >   What is the thinking about how to get this functionality in 
OpenStack?
> >   Since OpenStack's OS::Heat::AutoScalingGroup has a more general 
member
> > type, what is the thinking about what failure detection means (and how
> > it would be accomplished, communicated)?
> >
> > I have not found design discussion of this; have I missed something?
> 
> Yes :)
> 
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/95907/
> 
> The idea is that Convergence will provide health maintenance for _all_ 
> forms of resources in Heat. Once this is implemented, autoscaling gets 
> it for free by virtue of that fact that it manages resources using Heat 
> stacks.

Ah, right.  My reading of that design is not quite so simple.  Note that 
in the User Stories section it calls for different treatment of Compute 
instances depending on whether they are in a scaling group.  That's why I 
was thinking of this from a scaling group perspective.  But perhaps the 
more natural approach is to take the pervasive perspective and figure out 
how to suppress convergence for the Compute instances to which it should 
not apply.

Thanks,
Mike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140702/c1a3689b/attachment.html>