Am 20.06.25 um 19:45 schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre: >>> 1) Having "location" and "colocation" rules is, I think, going to be >>> unnecessarily confusing for people. While it isn't too complicated to >>> glean >>> the distinction once having read the descriptions of them (and I had >>> to go >>> read the descriptions), they don't convey immediately how they >>> differentiate themselves from each other. I think the concepts are >>> better >>> described by something like "host-service affinity" (for positive or >>> negative affinity between service(s) and specific host(s)/Resource >>> Pools), >>> and "service-service affinity" (for positive or negative affinity >>> between >>> multiple services (where any relationship to specific hosts are >>> inconsequential or specifically undesirable). > > Hi, I had already said the same as comment of the v1 patch, > > I don't care personally, but all my customers coming from vmware, xcp- > ng, or cloud provider with ec2 or gcp, everybody in the industry is > using "affinity/antifinity host/vms" since 20years , and I'm pretty > sure that if they read the doc and some whitepaper/benchmark > comparaison on the net (not even talking about chatgpt lol), they'll > think that the feature is not available.
IIRC Daniel took that nomenclature from pacemaker, albeit I mentioned that I really would not use that complex (!) project as example to follow, the PVE HA manager exists explicitly due to that being rather confusing and hard to configure for simple(r) use cases. Anyhow, the names can be changed rather easily, and the input of you two certainly puts some additional weight for the "affinity" and "anti-affinity" terminology, so thanks for chiming in. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
