As described in the Bug report, this is not an operation error, but a code issue.
Assuming that one aspectId can scale multiple VDUs according to SOL-VNFD, I think Tacker should be able to:
1) Perform a scale out operation with aspectId as `database`
2) vdu_1 and vdu_2 scale out simultaneously with 1) trigger.
* vdu_1: two instances are increased.
```
- vdu_1_scaling_aspect_deltas:
type: tosca.policies.nfv.VduScalingDeltas properties:
aspect: database
deltas:
delta_1: number_of_instances: 2
targets: [ vdu_1 ]
```
* vdu_2: three instances are increased.
```
- vdu_2_scaling_aspect_deltas:
type: tosca.policies.nfv.VduScalingDeltas properties:
aspect: database
deltas:
delta_1: number_of_instances: 3
targets: [ vdu_2 ]
```
However, with the current implementation of Tacker, neither Openstack VIM nor Kubernetes VIM can scale multiple VDUs at the same time, as described above.
I don't think it's a big problem because operator can define it with different aspectId and scale it with each.
However, if it fully complies with SOL, it may be a necessary modification.
I don't know the details, but I think a big modification is necessary.
As described in the Bug report, this is not an operation error, but a code issue.
Assuming that one aspectId can scale multiple VDUs according to SOL-VNFD, I think Tacker should be able to: aspect_ deltas: nfv.VduScalingD eltas
properties:
number_ of_instances: 2 aspect_ deltas: nfv.VduScalingD eltas
properties:
number_ of_instances: 3
1) Perform a scale out operation with aspectId as `database`
2) vdu_1 and vdu_2 scale out simultaneously with 1) trigger.
* vdu_1: two instances are increased.
```
- vdu_1_scaling_
type: tosca.policies.
aspect: database
deltas:
delta_1:
targets: [ vdu_1 ]
```
* vdu_2: three instances are increased.
```
- vdu_2_scaling_
type: tosca.policies.
aspect: database
deltas:
delta_1:
targets: [ vdu_2 ]
```
However, with the current implementation of Tacker, neither Openstack VIM nor Kubernetes VIM can scale multiple VDUs at the same time, as described above.
I don't think it's a big problem because operator can define it with different aspectId and scale it with each.
However, if it fully complies with SOL, it may be a necessary modification.
I don't know the details, but I think a big modification is necessary.