On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 11:44 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 05/23/2017 09:48 AM, Marc Heckmann wrote: > > For the anti-affinity use case, it's really useful for smaller or > > medium > > size operators who want to provide some form of failure domains to > > users > > but do not have the resources to create AZ's at DC or even at rack > > or > > row scale. Don't forget that as soon as you introduce AZs, you need > > to > > grow those AZs at the same rate and have the same flavor offerings > > across those AZs. > > > > For the retry thing, I think enough people have chimed in to echo > > the > > general sentiment. > > The purpose of my ML post was around getting rid of retries, not the > usefulness of affinity groups. That seems to have been missed, > however. > > Do you or David have any data on how often you've actually seen > retries > due to the last-minute affinity constraint violation in real world > production?
No I don't have any data unfortunately. Mostly because we haven't advertised the feature to end users yet. We only now are in a position to do so because, previously there was a bug causing nova-scheduler to grow in RAM usage if the required config flag to enable the feature was on. I have however seen retry's triggered on hypervisors for other reasons. I can try to dig up why specifically if that would be useful. I will add that we do not use Ironic at all. -m > > Thanks, > -jay > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operato > rs _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators