Hi Daniel, thanks for working on this !
>>I chose the name "colocation" in favor of affinity/anti-affinity, >>since >>it is a bit more concise that it is about co-locating services >>between >>each other in contrast to locating services on nodes, but no hard >>feelings to change it (same for any other names in this series). my 2cents, but everybody in the industry is calling this affinity/antiafifnity (vmware, nutanix, hyperv, openstack, ...). More precisely, vm affinity rules (vm<->vm) vs node affinity rules (vm->node , the current HA group) Personnally I don't care, it's just a name ^_^ . But I have a lot of customers asking about "does proxmox support affinity/anti-affinity". and if they are doing their own research, they will think that it doesnt exist. (or at minimum, write somewhere in the doc something like "aka vm affinity" or in commercial presentation ^_^) More serious question : Don't have read yet all the code, but how does it play with the current topsis placement algorithm ? >>Additional and/or future ideas >>------------------------------ Small feature request from students && customers: they are a lot asking to be able to use vm tags in the colocation/affinity >>I'd like to suggest to also transform the existing HA groups to >>location >>rules, if the rule concept turns out to be a good fit for the >>colocation >>feature in the HA Manager, as HA groups seem to integrate quite >>easily >>>into this concept. I agree with that too Thanks again ! Alexandre _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
