> From: Sylvain Bauza <sylvain.ba...@bull.net>
>
> Le 22/01/2014 02:50, Jay Pipes a écrit :
> >
> > Yup, agreed. It's difficult to guess what the capacity implications
> > would be without having solid numbers on customer demands for this
> > functionality, including hard data on how long such instances would
> > typically live (see my previous point about re-using compute hosts for
> > other purposes once the last dedicated instance is terminated on that
> > host).
> >
> > Best,
> > -jay
> >
> >
>
> My personal opinion (but I can be wrong) is that such feature would only
> be accepted by operators only if there is some termination period
> defined when you create a dedicated instance.
> Again, what happens when the lease (or the lock-in) ends should be
> defined by the operator, on his own convenience, and that's why Climate
> is behaviour-driven by configuration flags for lease termination.
Is that enough? Remember that some of us are concerned with business
workloads, rather than HPC jobs. While it might be acceptable in a
business workload to plan on regularly recycling every individual
instance, it is definitely not acceptable to plan on a specific end to a
given workload. And if the workload lives on, then usage of particular
hosts can live on (at least for a pretty large amount of time like the
product of (lifetime of a VM) * (number of VMs on the host) ).
Thanks,
Mike
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
