Sorry, I occasionally send new patches into separate branch. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ganeti-devel/pHIHsi5DU7k
-- Sincerely, Oleg Ponomarev <[email protected]> On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 7:20:40 PM UTC+3, Klaus Aehlig wrote: > > > Let me explain why I decided to do it this way. I thought that if it > > doesn't matter where the instance will be placed either on machine a > > or on a machine b, it's possible to select both locations as > > desired. In that case if one location desire is satisfied - it's ok > > and there is no reason for making cluster score bigger. > > Then this would be a change of the specification, so at least the > design document would have to be updated; and your patch description > quoting "instances tagged htools:desiredlocation:x where their primary > node is not tagged with x." as well... > > I'm happy with that semanic change, but then please update the > documentation > as well. Also, I forgot in the previous review, that the hbal man > pages needs to be updated as well in the same patch series. > > > On the other hand, if we have such contradictive desired locations, > > one of them will be always unsatisfied. Since we care only about > > metric changes but not about its absolute value it's ok to add plus > > one for each unsatisfied desired location as you suggest. > > The point is that location/failure domains need not be disjoint; they > might be hierarchical (e.g., data center, room, rack) but also contain > completely orthogonal information (e.g., manufacturer, machine model). > So why disallow requests like "I want this instance to be placed in > this data center with on one of our super-fast model-X machines"? > > Regards, > Klaus > > > -- > Klaus Aehlig > Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstr. 12, 80331 Muenchen > Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores >
