> -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: 03 July 2013 20:13 > To: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Cc: fgaudrea...@cloudops.com > Subject: Re: Auto-scaling won't scale down > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Ram Ganesh <ram.gan...@citrix.com> > wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > >> Sent: 03 July 2013 19:58 > >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; fgaudrea...@cloudops.com > >> Subject: Re: Auto-scaling won't scale down > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 10:14:38AM -0400, Francois Gaudreault wrote: > >> > I am not sure if this is an expected behavior or not. Apparently, > >> > if the VR is not setup, and you create the autoscale rules, nothing > >> > will happen until you spin at least one vm in the network. > >> > >> The reason makes sense technically, since you have 0 usage for the > >> environment at that point. Until there is actual usage, it will > >> never trigger a threshold that would cause a scaling event. > >> > >> Looking at this from a user's perspective, I actually don't see an > >> issue with this implementation. Does anyone know how AWS reacts in > this scenario? > > > > Chip, > > > > One can configure minMembers while defining an autoscale rule in which > case CS will provision minMember of guestVMs even when there is no > traffic. It should be true in case of AWS also. > > > > Thanks, > > RamG > > > > > > Sounds like a valid bug then, based on Francois not seeing it behave this way. > ;-)
Don't think so. In case of Francois the network was not in implemented state. If I recollect correctly CloudStack UI does not allow one to configure an LB rule when a guest network is not in implemented state. Better would be to use PersistentNetwork feature of 4.2 to configure one(autoscale) without the need for deploying a guest VM
