Remember that for many deployments, the entire system will be a single "zone", so
whatever term is used should make sense in a singular sense. That rules out names
such as 'slice' or 'fragment'.
I think this is a slightly outdated concept of zones.
The key to scalability in nova is to divide the set of all compute nodes into subsets, each with its own messaging and database infrastructure. The granularity of everything else (scheduling, api, volume, network, what-have-you) is just an implementation or deployment detail that should be flexible depending on our ultimate implementation and any alternative strategies we expose to deployers.
With this in mind it's still true that the smallest deployment would be likely include just one compute zone (or compute cell, as we are trending). But that is a far cry from the whole system even in a small deployment.
For this reason, whatever name we choose I would hope we prefix it with "compute-" (i.e. compute-zone or compute-cell) so that we aren't letting language trick us out of some of our better implementation options, such as allowing deployers to scale compute, volume, network, and api resources separately.
"Ed Leafe"<ed.leafe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
On Feb 18, 2012, at 1:08 PM, Nathanael Burton wrote:
Sectors remind me too much of disks.
Agreed.
How about? Layers, Slices, Fragments, Knots...
Remember that for many deployments, the entire system will be a single "zone", so
whatever term is used should make sense in a singular sense. That rules out names
such as 'slice' or 'fragment'.
'Knot'? In what sense can 'knot' be used?
I still prefer 'cell'. The parallel to single celled / multi-cellular life forms
makes sense, and there is really no overloading of the word in the world of
computers.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
