openstack team mailing list archive

[Erik Carlin <erik.carlin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That depends on what "near" means?  This will no doubt have significant
network implications and I can envision at least two levels of near (for
Rackspace):

1. Same public subnet, whatever that translates to.  This is what
Rackspace needs now and specifically for compute.
2. Same private network aggregation zone.  That is what I have been
referring to as a "performance zone".  By getting resources on the same
aggr (whether it's a pair, spine, etc.), you optimize the bisectional
bandwidth and performance of resources.  You would want to get compute,
block, lbs, etc. in the same performance zone if possible, or as close as
possible as dictated by the network topology.

I think different deployments will leverage the affinity abstractions
uniquely, but I can see the need for multiple ones.

Erik 


On 2/28/11 5:01 PM, "Vishvananda Ishaya" <vishvananda@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>This seems to overlap heavily with justin's metadata stuff.  The idea was
>that you could pass in metadata on instance launch saying near:
>other-object.  I think that is far more useful than an opaque affinity id.
>
>Vish
>
>On Feb 28, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Gabe Westmaas wrote:
>
>> Hi Eric,
>> 
>> I probably chose a poor word there, this is actually referring to
>>something smaller than the multicluster zones that Sandy has been
>>working on.  For example, in case for some performance reasons you
>>wanted two servers with as few network hops as possible.  If that still
>>lines up with what you are talking about, great.
>> 
>> Sorry about that!
>> 
>> Gabe
>> 
>> On Monday, February 28, 2011 4:57pm, "Eric Day" <eday@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>said:
>> 
>>> Hi Gabe,
>>> 
>>> There has been a lot of discussion about this, along with zone naming,
>>> structure, and so forth. I was propsing we not only make it part of
>>> Nova, but suggest all projects use the same locality zone names/tags
>>> to ensure cross-project locality.
>>> 
>>> So, "yes", and don't make it nova-specific. :)
>>> 
>>> -Eric
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 04:48:25PM -0500, Gabe Westmaas wrote:
>>>> Hey All,
>>>> 
>>>> For various reasons, Rackspace has a need to allow customers to
>>>>request placement
>>>> in the same zone as another server.  I am trying to figure out if
>>>>this is
>>>> generically useful, or something that should be outside of core.  The
>>>>idea is
>>>> that if you don't specify an affinity ID one will get returned to you
>>>>when you
>>>> create the server, and you can use that ID to add additional servers
>>>>in close
>>>> proximity to the first.
>>>> 
>>>> What do you think?  Is this useful enough outside Rackspace to be in
>>>>core? 
>>>> Alternatively, we can write it as an extension so as not to clutter
>>>>core.
>>>> 
>>>> Gabe
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>>>> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp