Zane Bitter <zbit...@redhat.com> wrote on 07/01/2014 06:58:47 PM: > On 01/07/14 15:47, Mike Spreitzer wrote: > > In AWS, an autoscaling group includes health maintenance functionality > > --- both an ability to detect basic forms of failures and an ability to > > react properly to failures detected by itself or by a load balancer. > > What is the thinking about how to get this functionality in OpenStack? > > Since OpenStack's OS::Heat::AutoScalingGroup has a more general member > > type, what is the thinking about what failure detection means (and how > > it would be accomplished, communicated)? > > > > I have not found design discussion of this; have I missed something? > > Yes :) > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/95907/ > > The idea is that Convergence will provide health maintenance for _all_ > forms of resources in Heat. Once this is implemented, autoscaling gets > it for free by virtue of that fact that it manages resources using Heat > stacks.
Ah, right. My reading of that design is not quite so simple. Note that in the User Stories section it calls for different treatment of Compute instances depending on whether they are in a scaling group. That's why I was thinking of this from a scaling group perspective. But perhaps the more natural approach is to take the pervasive perspective and figure out how to suppress convergence for the Compute instances to which it should not apply. Thanks, Mike
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
