Clusters still work to segment which compute the VMs run on, and can do tags or other networking related segmentation.
I can understand this for something like RBD, you could have all of your clusters backed by the same Ceph cluster. But even then I think it makes more sense to define primary storage per-cluster, even if you define the same primary storage for multiple clusters. Unless we're just saying we want the ability to do away with clusters altogether and just have a giant pool of compute and storage. If people want that they can do it with a single, large cluster. Ultimately, even if I were using the same primary storage SAN, distributed object store, etc for multiple clusters, it scales better to partition them into separate buckets/diskarrays/whatever. I don't know, I can see what it's trying to accomplish, but I'm not necessarily sold on the utility or that it can't already be done in a reasonable fashion without breaking the primarypool/cluster relationship. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote: > Isn't a cluster supposed to be an isolated "island" of machines which do > not have any ties with other clusters other then being in the same pod/zone?
