Open Stack

Sorry, addressing gaffe, bringing this back on-list...

On 04/18/2018 04:36 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2018, at 4:11 PM, Eric Fried <openstack at fried.cc> wrote:
>>> That makes a lot of sense. Since we are already suffixing the query param “resources” to indicate granular, why not add a clarifying term to that suffix? E.g., “resources1=“ -> “resources1d” (for ‘different’). The exact string we use can be bike shedded, but requiring it be specified sounds pretty sane to me.
>> 	I'm not understanding what you mean here.  The issue at hand is how
>> numbered groups interact with *each other*.  If I said
>> resources1s=...&resources2d=..., what am I saying about whether the
>> resources in group 1 can or can't land in the same RP as those of group 2?
> OK, sorry. What I meant by the ‘d’ was that that group’s resources must be from a different provider than any other group’s resources (anti-affinity). So in your example, you don’t care if group1 is from the same provider, but you do with group2, so that’s kind of a contradictory set-up (unless you had other groups).
>
> Instead, if the example were changed to resources1s=...&resources2d=..&resources3s=…, then groups 1 and 3 could be allocated from the same provider.
>
> -- Ed Leafe

This is a cool idea.  It doesn't allow the same level of granularity as
being able to list explicit group numbers to be [anti-]affinitized with
specific other groups - but I'm not sure we need that.  I would have to
think through the use cases with this in mind.

-efried