Open Stack

Hi,

Thanks for all the answers!

I went back to ask what our users are using this for. At the moment
I'm not sure what they do is really supported. But you tell me. To me
it makes some sense.

Basically they have an additional and unusual compute host recovery
process, where a compute host after a failure is brought back by the
same name. Then they rebuild the servers on the same compute host
where the servers were running before. When the server's disk was
backed by a volume, so its content was not lost by the compute host
failure, they don't want to lose it either in the recovery process.
The evacute operation clearly would be a better fit to do this, but
that disallows evacuating to the "same" host. For a long time rebuild
just allowed "evacuating to the same host". So they went with it.

At the moment I did not find a prohibition in the documentation to
bring back a failed compute host by the same name. If I missed it or
this is not recommended for any reason, please let me know.

Clearly in many clouds evacuating can fully replace what they do here.
I believe they may have chosen this unusual compute host recovery
option to have some kind of recovery process for very small
deployments, where you don't always have space to evacuate before you
rebuilt the failed compute host. And this collided with a deployment
system which reuses host names.

At this point I'm not sure if this really belongs to the rebuild
operation. Could easily be better addressed in evacuate. Or in the
deployment system not reusing hostnames.

Please let me know what you think!

Thanks in advance,
Bence