4:07 p.m.
Hi,
Can someone tell me whether setting positive and negative VM affinity rules
will be at all possible with oVirt at some point in time, i.e. is this on
the roadmap?
I need to be able to tell VM's to run on different hosts, spread them
around, so to speak. For example, domain controllers would be better off
running on as many different hypervisors as possible, the way I see it.
That way, the failure of a single hypervisor has minimal impact on the
infrastructure. I know there is a feature to pin VM's to a single
hypervisor, but that's not quite the same. I would like to group the domain
controllers and then tell them not to run on the same host as other members
of that group as much as possible.
The other way around would be nice as well: have several VM's run on the
same hardware. For example, a three tiered web application would probably
perform better if the VM's are all on the same hypervisor. I know I could
pin them all to the same hypervisor, but still: that's not quite the same.
I want to be able to group the web app VM's and tell them to try to run on
the same hypervisors as the other members of the group, so they can move to
another hypervisor as a group if the need arises.
Apologies if this has been asked before or documented in some place I
haven't looked yet.
Regards,
Maxim Burgerhout <maxim(a)wzzrd.com>
4:19 p.m.
On 07/31/2012 04:07 PM, Maxim Burgerhout wrote:
Hi,
Can someone tell me whether setting positive and negative VM affinity
rules will be at all possible with oVirt at some point in time, i.e. is
this on the roadmap?
it is.
I need to be able to tell VM's to run on different hosts, spread
them
around, so to speak. For example, domain controllers would be better off
running on as many different hypervisors as possible, the way I see it.
That way, the failure of a single hypervisor has minimal impact on the
infrastructure. I know there is a feature to pin VM's to a single
hypervisor, but that's not quite the same. I would like to group the
domain controllers and then tell them not to run on the same host as
other members of that group as much as possible.
The other way around would be nice as well: have several VM's run on the
same hardware. For example, a three tiered web application would
probably perform better if the VM's are all on the same hypervisor. I
know I could pin them all to the same hypervisor, but still: that's not
quite the same. I want to be able to group the web app VM's and tell
them to try to run on the same hypervisors as the other members of the
group, so they can move to another hypervisor as a group if the need arises.
Apologies if this has been asked before or documented in some place I
haven't looked yet.
two ways for you to do this today:
1. prefer/pin these VMs to different host
2. use two clusters and put them in different ones
Regards,
Maxim Burgerhout<mailto:maxim@wzzrd.com>
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
10:20 p.m.
Nice, thanks for the info. Can you give a hint of a time frame for the
implementation? I'm not asking for dates or even version numbers, just
something along the lines of 'short term', 'mid term', etc.
Regards,
Maxim Burgerhout
maxim(a)wzzrd.com
----------------
EB11 5E56 E648 9D99 E8EF 05FB C513 6FD4 1302 B48A
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Itamar Heim <iheim(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 07/31/2012 04:07 PM, Maxim Burgerhout wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can someone tell me whether setting positive and negative VM affinity
> rules will be at all possible with oVirt at some point in time, i.e. is
> this on the roadmap?
>
>
it is.
I need to be able to tell VM's to run on different hosts, spread them
> around, so to speak. For example, domain controllers would be better off
> running on as many different hypervisors as possible, the way I see it.
> That way, the failure of a single hypervisor has minimal impact on the
> infrastructure. I know there is a feature to pin VM's to a single
> hypervisor, but that's not quite the same. I would like to group the
> domain controllers and then tell them not to run on the same host as
> other members of that group as much as possible.
>
> The other way around would be nice as well: have several VM's run on the
> same hardware. For example, a three tiered web application would
> probably perform better if the VM's are all on the same hypervisor. I
> know I could pin them all to the same hypervisor, but still: that's not
> quite the same. I want to be able to group the web app VM's and tell
> them to try to run on the same hypervisors as the other members of the
> group, so they can move to another hypervisor as a group if the need
> arises.
>
> Apologies if this has been asked before or documented in some place I
> haven't looked yet.
>
>
two ways for you to do this today:
1. prefer/pin these VMs to different host
2. use two clusters and put them in different ones
Regards,
>
> Maxim Burgerhout<mailto:maxim@wzzrd.**com <maxim(a)wzzrd.com>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Users mailing list
> Users(a)ovirt.org
>
http://lists.ovirt.org/**mailman/listinfo/users<http://lists.ovirt.org...
>
>
10:36 p.m.
On 07/31/2012 10:20 PM, Maxim Burgerhout wrote:
Nice, thanks for the info. Can you give a hint of a time frame for
the
implementation? I'm not asking for dates or even version numbers, just
something along the lines of 'short term', 'mid term', etc.
I'd go with mid-term.
(there is a POC patch for integrating drools which would allow you to
write your own scheduling policies for something like that)
http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/6574/
several thoughts here:
1. need to add positive/negative affinity fields to VM entity.
2. make the scheduling logic a supported interface for pluggable
implementations
3. implement the drool implementation as a pluggable implementation.
4. support affinity based scheduling
#2 would allow someone to write their own scheduling logic in java code
(well, maybe java wrapping/calling some other language).
#3 would allow someone to write their own scheduling logic using rule
based language with drools.
#4 would mean you wouldn't need #2-#3 for this specific feature.
Regards,
Maxim Burgerhout
maxim(a)wzzrd.com <mailto:maxim@wzzrd.com>
----------------
EB11 5E56 E648 9D99 E8EF 05FB C513 6FD4 1302 B48A
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Itamar Heim <iheim(a)redhat.com
<mailto:iheim@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 07/31/2012 04:07 PM, Maxim Burgerhout wrote:
Hi,
Can someone tell me whether setting positive and negative VM
affinity
rules will be at all possible with oVirt at some point in time,
i.e. is
this on the roadmap?
it is.
I need to be able to tell VM's to run on different hosts, spread
them
around, so to speak. For example, domain controllers would be
better off
running on as many different hypervisors as possible, the way I
see it.
That way, the failure of a single hypervisor has minimal impact
on the
infrastructure. I know there is a feature to pin VM's to a single
hypervisor, but that's not quite the same. I would like to group the
domain controllers and then tell them not to run on the same host as
other members of that group as much as possible.
The other way around would be nice as well: have several VM's
run on the
same hardware. For example, a three tiered web application would
probably perform better if the VM's are all on the same
hypervisor. I
know I could pin them all to the same hypervisor, but still:
that's not
quite the same. I want to be able to group the web app VM's and tell
them to try to run on the same hypervisors as the other members
of the
group, so they can move to another hypervisor as a group if the
need arises.
Apologies if this has been asked before or documented in some
place I
haven't looked yet.
two ways for you to do this today:
1. prefer/pin these VMs to different host
2. use two clusters and put them in different ones
Regards,
Maxim Burgerhout<mailto:maxim@wzzrd.__com <mailto:maxim@wzzrd.com>>
_________________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org <mailto:Users@ovirt.org>
http://lists.ovirt.org/__mailman/listinfo/users
<http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
12:39 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com>
To: "Maxim Burgerhout" <maxim(a)wzzrd.com>
Cc: users(a)ovirt.org, "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com>, "Doron
Fediuck" <dfediuck(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:36:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Users] How to force VM's to run on different hosts?
On 07/31/2012 10:20 PM, Maxim Burgerhout wrote:
> Nice, thanks for the info. Can you give a hint of a time frame for
> the
> implementation? I'm not asking for dates or even version numbers,
> just
> something along the lines of 'short term', 'mid term', etc.
I'd go with mid-term.
(there is a POC patch for integrating drools which would allow you to
write your own scheduling policies for something like that)
http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/6574/
several thoughts here:
1. need to add positive/negative affinity fields to VM entity.
2. make the scheduling logic a supported interface for pluggable
implementations
3. implement the drool implementation as a pluggable implementation.
4. support affinity based scheduling
#2 would allow someone to write their own scheduling logic in java
code
(well, maybe java wrapping/calling some other language).
#3 would allow someone to write their own scheduling logic using rule
based language with drools.
#4 would mean you wouldn't need #2-#3 for this specific feature.
Note that the POC Itamar referred to works with Planner,
which is really nice, but will change in the future. That
said, I agree that VM affinity and negative affinity is
definitely in oVirt's roadmap.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Maxim Burgerhout
> maxim(a)wzzrd.com <mailto:maxim@wzzrd.com>
> ----------------
> EB11 5E56 E648 9D99 E8EF 05FB C513 6FD4 1302 B48A
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Itamar Heim <iheim(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:iheim@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> On 07/31/2012 04:07 PM, Maxim Burgerhout wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Can someone tell me whether setting positive and negative
> VM
> affinity
> rules will be at all possible with oVirt at some point in
> time,
> i.e. is
> this on the roadmap?
>
>
> it is.
>
>
> I need to be able to tell VM's to run on different hosts,
> spread
> them
> around, so to speak. For example, domain controllers would
> be
> better off
> running on as many different hypervisors as possible, the
> way I
> see it.
> That way, the failure of a single hypervisor has minimal
> impact
> on the
> infrastructure. I know there is a feature to pin VM's to a
> single
> hypervisor, but that's not quite the same. I would like to
> group the
> domain controllers and then tell them not to run on the
> same host as
> other members of that group as much as possible.
>
> The other way around would be nice as well: have several
> VM's
> run on the
> same hardware. For example, a three tiered web application
> would
> probably perform better if the VM's are all on the same
> hypervisor. I
> know I could pin them all to the same hypervisor, but
> still:
> that's not
> quite the same. I want to be able to group the web app VM's
> and tell
> them to try to run on the same hypervisors as the other
> members
> of the
> group, so they can move to another hypervisor as a group if
> the
> need arises.
>
> Apologies if this has been asked before or documented in
> some
> place I
> haven't looked yet.
>
>
> two ways for you to do this today:
> 1. prefer/pin these VMs to different host
> 2. use two clusters and put them in different ones
>
> Regards,
>
> Maxim Burgerhout<mailto:maxim@wzzrd.__com
> <mailto:maxim@wzzrd.com>>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users(a)ovirt.org <mailto:Users@ovirt.org>
> http://lists.ovirt.org/__mailman/listinfo/users
> <http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
>
>
>
>
4495
days inactive
4496
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Doron Fediuck -
Itamar Heim -
Maxim Burgerhout