Yup. Like Chip says. This can only be for placement or operations through CloudStack.
--Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 7:07 AM > To: Murali Reddy > Cc: Prachi Damle; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Affinity / Anti-affinity Rules > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 06:59:10PM +0530, Murali Reddy wrote: > > On 06/02/13 4:12 AM, "Prachi Damle" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >As per discussions below, the scope of the feature now consists of a > > >generic framework for defining affinity groups in CloudStack and a > > >default implementation to support host affinity and anti-affinity. > > > > Prachi, > > > > When the granularity of affinity/anti-affinity rule is at host level, will > > the rules work in case of externally managed clusters (or integration with > > native capabilites), like in case of vmware where it has its own > > scheduling and HA behaviour? > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > The only way that would work, would be to build support for affinity / > anti-affinity into the HV plugins themselves, and only use that when HA > is delegated to the HV software. DRS is another concern. > > Sounds quite complex. Perhaps the only option for a reasonable > implementation timeframe is to only support scenarios where the HV does > not do HA or DRS.
