From:
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gareth S Bestor
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 5:28
PM
To: Keir Fraser
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]
Make "xm mem-set" be lower bound ondomX-min-mem
>...shrinking to <2% of original allocation is a
very bad idea
An absolute limit might be easier to handle - and expose to users - than a
relative one, especially up-front in CIM where it exposes min/max limits on
resource allocations. Or is it really <2% of whatever the original memory
allocation is when things go to kabluwey... ?
BTW - at the moment we are exposing a 16MB minimum DomU memory size thru our
CIM providers resource allocation defaults, although this is more a hint than
anything actually enforced; the mgmt client can still pass in whatever value
they like and we (CIM) will blindly pass it along to xm create ...
- Gareth
Dr. Gareth S. Bestor
IBM Linux Technology
Center
M/S DES2-01
15300 SW Koll Parkway,
Beaverton, OR 97006
503-578-3186, T/L 775-3186, Fax 503-578-3186
Keir
Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
Keir
Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
05/20/06 01:26 AM
|
|
To
|
Gareth S
Bestor/Beaverton/IBM@IBMUS
|
|
cc
|
xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
Subject
|
Re: [Xen-devel]
[PATCH] Make "xm mem-set" be lower bound on domX-min-mem
|
|
>
Unless there is an known *architectural* limit in Xen on the lower
> bound of the memory for a guest DomU, then I
agree - xend
> shouldn't impose an arbitrary one
simply to act as 'hard hint' to
> prevent stupid users from doing stupid things
> (give 'em all the rope they want I say!
:-) Care-and-feeding of naive
> users is best left to tools higher up the
mgmt stack (IMO).
I agree with this. I'm also not sure about putting
a lower bound in the
balloon driver, but at least there we know that
shrinking to <2% of
original allocation is a very bad idea with very
high probability.
-- Keir
