On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.de> wrote: > On 2009-11-06T12:45:17, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: > >> And instead of a limit-utilization option, we'd have >> placement-strategy=(default|utilization|minimal) >> >> Default ::= what we do now >> Utilization ::= what you've implemented > > These two are obvious, since we can already do them with existing code. > > The following: > >> Minimal ::= what you've implemented _without_ the load balancing we >> currently do. > > (Basically, concentrate load on as few nodes as possible. Rucksack > problem.) > > To this I'd like to add > > Balanced ::= try to spread the load as evenly as possible. This is hard > to define - perhaps "maximise average free resources on nodes". > > These latter two are harder, and basically require a linear optimization > engine to be integrated. But I'd, of course, love to see them.
Of no question there, just trying to at least be prepared for it so that we don't have to change the option name(s). _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
