Yes, requirements seem vague. What parameters define affinity/anti-affinity?

Requirements mention
>>  For each VM, users should be able to provide both (Affinity VMs and 
>> Anti-affinity VMs) lists concurrently. For example, VM-A can have affinity 
>> with VMs B & C and anti-affinity with VMs D & E at the same time.
>> When configuring Affinity / anti-affinity for a VM, users should be allowed 
>> to provide a list of affinity / anti-affinity VMs (via API) or select 
>> affinity /anti-affinity VMs from a list (via UI)

When user specifies VM-A can have affinity with VMs B & C does that mean they 
should be placed on same pod or same hypervisor(cluster or host) by the 
allocation logic?

-Prachi
-----Original Message-----
From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 6:06 PM
To: CloudStack DeveloperList
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity Rules

Actually the proposal is quite vague.
What does affinity mean to the end-user?
What guarantees are being asked for?
 - the vms are on the same hypervisor (affinity)
 - the vms are not on the same hypervisor (anti)
 - the vms are interconnected by a high-speed interconnect (affinity)
 - the vms are in different failure domains (host/cluster/pod)

I find the concept of affinity groups useful.
A possible workflow would be
1. Create an affinity group of type 'Foo'
1a. Group type indicates the guarantee
2. Create a VM in the group

VMs can only leave groups on vm destruction.

But without the specific type of guarantee, it is hard to discuss this proposal.

On 1/3/13 4:23 PM, "Manan Shah" <manan.s...@citrix.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I would like to propose a new feature for enabling Affinity / 
>Anti-affinity rules in CS 4.1. I have created a JIRA ticket and 
>provided the requirements at the following location.  Please provide 
>feedback on the requirements.
>
>JIRA Ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-739
>Requirements: 
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Affinity+-+Anti-
>aff
>i
>nity+rules
>
>
>Regards,
>Manan Shah
>

Reply via email to