Yes, there are some differences in the approach from that document.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Noburou TANIGUCHI <dev(a)nota.m001.jp> wrote:
I'll take on getting the proposal for isolation groups shared withcf-dev,
hopefully, in the next couple of weeks.Great!
Is there any big change from
Dieu Cao wrote
Yes, I was just talking with Onsi and Mark Kropf about this yesterday andcf-dev,
plan to submit a talk on this with Mark Kropf for cf summit berlin.
I'll take on getting the proposal for isolation groups shared with
hopefully, in the next couple of weeks.
CF CAPI PM
On Friday, September 4, 2015, James Bayer <
i believe dieu is working on this in preparate for cf summit in berlin.
dieu, did i understand that correctly?
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris <
we’re also looking forward to this, for we have some peculiar
On Aug 29, 2015, at 2:51 AM, James Bayer <
we've been using a new term for the same concept we've previously
placement pools called "isolation groups".
onsi has been working on some documentation for what this may look like
and the requirements, but the work has not started. i believe onsi will
share something soon.
so today, the way to accomplish this need to place apps on specific
infrastructure is to use separate CF installations.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Matt Cholick <
More than a year ago, there was some discussion and a proposal around
adding placement pools so cloud foundry admins could better target how
applications were placed on runners:
Did this work gain traction? I've looked through the release notes as
well as MEGA and CF Diego's public trackers and don't see stories for
work either done or planned, though it could also be that I'm just not
My goal is to place canary apps in specifically Z1 or Z2, as well as
place some internally used apps that, for networking reasons, should
one zone or the other.
I'm not a ...
View this message in context:
Sent from the CF Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.