openstack team mailing list archive

["Day, Phil" <philip.day@xxxxxx>]

Thanks Joe,

I was anticipating something more complex to be able to say when an aggregate should or shouldn't be linked to the hypevisor and overlooked the obvious.

So just to make sure I've  got it - on libvirt systems an aggregate can be used for anything (because of the NoOp in the driver), but on xen systems it's still liked to the hypervisor pools ?

Thanks
Phil

From: Joe Gordon [mailto:jogo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 19 September 2012 19:02
To: Day, Phil
Cc: openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) (openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Generalsied host aggregates in Folsom


On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Day, Phil <philip.day@xxxxxx<mailto:philip.day@xxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi Folks,

Trying to catch-up  (I'm thinking of changing my middle name to catch-up :)  ) with the generalisation of host aggregates - and looking at the code it looks to me as if the chain for adding a host to an aggregate still ends up calling the virt layer

api/openstack/compute/contrib/aggregates/AggregateController/action()
compute/api/AggregateAPI/add_host_to_aggregate()
<RPC>
compute/manager/add_aggregate_host()
virt/add_to_aggregate()

I thought the change was to be able to create aggregates that can be linked to a hypervisor concept, but could also just be a way of "tagging" hosts into pools for other scheduler reasons - am I missing somethign ?

The RPC component is there to ensure XenAPI still works.  In the libvirt driver, add_to_aggregate() is a noop.

So you can create an aggregate that can be linked to a hypervisor but also as a way to tag hosts


Thanks,
Phil




_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp