On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Aimon Bustardo <abusta...@g2ix.com> wrote: > I have seen another thread on this also "Multi Clusters in a Region ". > the URI based naming makes the most sense here and the actual name is > each child is free-form but must conform to acceptable URI characters > for optional DNS. The hierarchy is location based only in as much as you > make it.. its a hierarchy that you can build with zones and clusters. > This can be in one physical location or many, but it will always be a > collection of servers and services. The hierarchical URI model fits > this perfectly and adds the benefit of being able to associate DNS with it.
Hi! What I was saying is that zones don't mean "geographical regions". Zones are merely a collection of hosts or other zones, nothing more or less. There should be no connotation that a zone is equal to a geographical location. This allows Nova the most flexibility for organizations that want to set up zones that have nothing to do with geography, but rather want zones that represent hardware or service level agreements. Hope that explains which I'm uncertain of the benefits of a URI based naming scheme for zones *being enforced by Nova*. Nothing wrong with an organization naming their zones with a URI naming scheme. I'm just saying Nova should not *enforce* a URI naming scheme... -jay _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
