[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Libvir] The problem of the definition of tuning informations



Daniel Veillard wrote:

<snip>



My opinion:
-----------

We need better tools, even for simple use case to be able to save
an existing tuning for a domain or a full machine, and reload it when needed. This is IMHO better done on top of the existing API
which already have the entry points to implement them. My idea is
to provide tuning commands in virsh [5]. If you implement tuning both
at creation time and in the tool, this mean you either make them
different in which case you have no coherency between what you say
when you create a domain or save its config and what you do at the
virsh level. If you don't make it different (for example trying to
use the same kind of XML syntax), then you need code for doing this
both in the tool and in the library itself, or you export as a
new API the tuning load and save. Exporting as a parallel API what we have already for scheduling and VCPU affinity makes the API
more complex, and less coherent.

Daniel,

Just to be sure I understand, are you suggesting removing tuning information from any configuration file and making it a runtime exercise to set it up? (That is, after the domain has been started)

--
Elizabeth Kon (Beth)
IBM Linux Technology Center
Open Hypervisor Team
email: eak us ibm com


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]