I had brief discussion with some folks this afternoon around tags and wanted to open that discussion up on the mailing list:
Quick background: CloudStack uses the concept of tags on resources so that when an instance is provisioned if it has matching tags it will be provisioned on the matching tagged resources. (e.g. you'd tag your SSD storage with a 'really_really_fast' tag and if you provisioned the an instance with a service offering that had a matching 'really_really_fast' tag it would be provisioned onto the SSD storage. The particular behavior in question is how we handle provisioning instances that don't have a matching tag. Today, you might not have that 'really_really_fast' tag but your machine might still end up on the 'really_really_fast'-tagged storage. (e.g. the tagged resources aren't exclusively reserved for instances with matching tags) My initial POV was that instances that possessed non-matching tags should be lower priority for the deployment, but that deployment shouldn't fail merely because an or matching tagged or untagged resource wasn't available. Alex however may have swayed me a bit - he advocated explicit matching. Untagged deployments could only have untagged resources, etc. And that any failure to provide enough resources results in a failed deployment. Thoughts, comments, flames? --David
