Sure, that makes sense, Alex. If someone wants to create a zone-wide primary storage for data volumes, then that data volume can be migrated between VMs in separate clusters.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? > > >
