On May 4, 2012, at 1:44 PM, David Nalley wrote: > 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?
I think it'd help a lot if some verification of the tags happened the UI - currently (at least my exp) any value can be entered for a tag, and it's not really clear if it's used or not. Seems like something that should fail up front, not after an attempt to provision. Or maybe not verification, but autocomplete? Something so it doesn't feel like one's typing in the dark... John
