Re: [Xen-API] New API Document and C Bindings

[Ewan Mellor <ewan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 07:16:40PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:

> Also I have a question regarding domain-0. How will it be represented? Is
> it a VM - the fact that 'guest' is written in the description of the VM
> class makes me think that this might not be the case.

That's a very good question.  My instinct is to say that dom-0 shouldn't
be part of the list of domains, and that it should be considered part of
the infrastructure.  When we have driver domains, and HVM stub domains,
there will be many of these domains, representing different parts of the
infrastructure, and it seems to me that these are not the same as
"guests" or "VMs".  A VM can be rebooted, migrated (possibly), each time
keeping the same VM, but ending up with a different domain.  A VM is
ultimately the reason that users are running Xen, and the thing that
makes it useful.  For this reason, I don't think that domain 0 is a VM.

On the other hand, these things are still useful entities -- you might
want to monitor the CPU cost due to each of them, tweak their scheduling
parameters, and so on.  So perhaps they are close enough to being a VM
that we should put them in there, and cope with the slightly special
nature of them as best we can.

What do people think?

Ewan.

_______________________________________________
xen-api mailing list
xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-api