I was doing some testing with the explicit and implicit dedication
features, and was just wondering about the logic behind it.

>From a service provider perspective this feature seems most useful for
dedicating certain resources to a domain or account.  In other words, a
client pays for a single host/cluster of hosts, and all their instances are
isolated on those hosts.

Right now if a host/cluster is explicitly dedicated system VMs will ignore
that dedication and deploy on the dedicated hosts anyway.  This isn't ideal
because the system VMs consume resources dedicated (and being paid for) by
a single client.  That being said the system VMs have to get deployed
somewhere, so this is probably the best solution overall.

To get around this issue a host can be implicitly dedicated.  In this case
only VMs specifically deployed by the dedicated user will be provisioned on
their resources.  This prevents unwanted resource consumption on the
dedicated infrastructure.  However, this causes the opposite problem with
virtual routers.  The dedicated client's virtual router is deployed on
shared resources, instead of their dedicated infrastructure.  This isn't
ideal, because a customer paying for dedicated resources can be negatively
impacted by an issue with the shared hosts (e.g., host running their VR
goes down causing network outages).

Would it be hard to change the implicit dedication logic to allow the
virtual router owned by an account to reside on their implicitly dedicated
resources, or even to prefer those resources?  This would ensure that a
client paying for dedicated resources would only be affected by outages on
their own hardware.  If a console proxy or secondary storage VM goes down
they would still be affected, but that's a much less urgent/immediately
visible problem than losing a virtual router.

I know the implicit dedication manager views virtual routers as being owned
by the "system" right now, but since they are tied to a specific account I
don't think this change would be too hard to implement.

Is my logic sound on this, or is there something I'm not considering?


Thank You,

Logan Barfield
Tranquil Hosting

Reply via email to