WorkLoad Balancing WLB rules to keep specific servers together on the same XenServer Host?

[Chris Marreel]

Hi all,

 

I'm at the moment looking at WLB, but I can't find a way to create 'custom rules'.  

e.g. Is it posssible to keep some VM's TOGETHER on the SAME XenServer-host ?

 

The biggest reason is PVS-Accelerator.  So I would love to have all the VM's that are using a specific PVS-image running on the SAME XS-Host, so they make optimal use of the PVS-Accelerator-cache.  Ofcourse in the aspect of HA this is not optimal, but we must be honest, we don't have that much hardware-failures, so we are looking at optimal every-day use and maximum performance for the end-users.

 

And if not possible at the moment, wouldn't it be a great idea to add this in future WLB-versions ?  How can I file this WLB feature-request ?

 

Thanks for sharing your toughts.

Greetings,  

  Chris Marreel

[Tobias Kreidl]

One can up-vote it using the little blue arrow on the upper left. Just gave it a vote up. You probably cannot up-vote your own posting, I suspect, but have never tried that.

 

-=Tobias

[Michael Warrillow1709160721]

Disappointed that this feature is still not available via GUI in XenCenter with version 8.2 . VMWare continues to win in the hypervisor space, was doing this over 10 years ago with VMWare.  

 

RFE ID-011158 submitted for this feature change. 

[Alan Lantz]

Other than assigning VM's to specific hosts I'm not sure what you could do. I guess you could have 

multiple pools. One pool of XenServers with PVS-Accelerator and another pool that doesn't.  

 

--Alan--

 

[Tobias Kreidl]

You can only specify certain VMs to be started together or in a sequence, If desired. To accomplish what you want, you'd have to write a script to monitor which VM was on which host and have it Xenmotion VMs around, as necessary. You'd have to take into consideration available hosts, the memory available on a particular host, etc., which makes things more complicated.

 

As to feature requests, go to this space on this forum: https://discussions.citrix.com/forum/1289-feature-requests-and-suggestions/

 

-=Tobias

[Chris Marreel]

Hi Alan and Thobias,

 

Thanks for you input.

But I assume that what I want, isn't yet available in the current WLB-setup.  If I compare with the possibilities in VMware's DRS there it would be possible, so I hope the WLB-development-team can implement this in the next version of WLB.

 

Let's hope for some votes in my forum-post.

 

Greetings,

  Chris Marreel

[Tobias Kreidl]

Chris,

No, that is not a currently available feature. Best to do, as suggested, is to add your request to the request and suggestion forum.

 

-=Tobias

[Chris Marreel]

1 hour ago, Tobias Kreidl said:

Chris,

No, that is not a currently available feature. Best to do, as suggested, is to add your request to the request and suggestion forum.

 

-=Tobias

Hi Tobias,  My post is in the correct forum I assume. 

I can understand I can't 'vote' for my own request, but it's totaly unclear to me how one could "vote" for a request in this forum...

As far as I can see all the forum-posts have at the moment 0 votes.  

Or can you, by means of prove one can vote, try and do a test-vote on my request-post ?

 

Greetings,

  Chris

[Alan Lantz]

Something else I have ran into that is along this lines is something like DNS where I want VM's to never been

on the same hosts together. Assigning them to servers was the best I could do. It would be nice if WLB could

do inclusions/exclusions like this.

 

--Alan--

 

[Tobias Kreidl]

Agreed -- we have multiple server VMs and in the interest of HA, it's best to spread them out over multiple servers. One of the reasons I've never used WLB is its lack of flexibility -- there is so much more it should be able to do to be really useful.

[Chris Marreel]

11 hours ago, Tobias Kreidl said:

One can up-vote it using the little blue arrow on the upper left. Just gave it a vote up. You probably cannot up-vote your own posting, I suspect, but have never tried that.

 

-=Tobias

thanks Tobias for the vote ;-)

[Chris Marreel]

9 hours ago, Alan Lantz said:

Something else I have ran into that is along this lines is something like DNS where I want VM's to never been

on the same hosts together. Assigning them to servers was the best I could do. It would be nice if WLB could

do inclusions/exclusions like this.

 

--Alan--

 

Hi Alan,

 

That is what I mean with "rules in WLB".  With these 'rules' we should be able to specify which VM's should be on SEPARATE hosts, or even GROUPED together on the SAME host. 

I hope the development of WLB can include these "rules", one can call them 'affinity-rules' and 'anti-affinity-rules'.

 

Hi, development team of WLB, this would be a very handy function to include in a next release of WLB.  What do you think ?

Thanks and greetings,

   Chris MARREEL