Also disagree, silent fallback is no good.
If we really need this, we can introduce some way to specify "preferred
locations" for service deployment, based on weights for example. But that's
a whole new feature and needs to be discussed in more detail.
-Val
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
[hidden email]>
wrote:
> -1 from my side.
>
> If there are no nodes for a service this is an exceptional situation, which
> should be handled explicitly. Silent fallback will make things less
> obvious.
>
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Igniters!
> >
> > I want to discuss if it possible to implement ClusterGroup fallback, i.e.
> > create
> > a chained cluster group ClusterGroup1->ClusterGroup2 that will refer to
> > nodes
> > satisfying conditions for ClusterGroup1 while there are such nodes and
> > if no such nodes become available then the nodes satisfying ClusterGroup2
> > conditions
> > will come into play.
> >
> > As an example, consider a case when service per node should be deployed
> on
> > server nodes
> > located on a specific host. If all the server nodes on the host go down,
> > then all the remaining server nodes should be used for service
> deployment.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Alex.
> >
>
Locked
