Re: [Xen-devel] Pointed questions re Xen memory overcommit

[Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Olaf Hering [mailto:olaf@xxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Pointed questions re Xen memory overcommit
> 
> On Wed, Feb 29, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> 
> > I'm mostly curious because I've spent the last four years
> > trying to solve this problem in a more intelligent way
> > and am wondering if the "old way" has improved, or is
> > still just the old way but mostly warmed over for Xen.
> > And, admittedly, a bit jealous because there's apparently
> > so much effort going into the "old way" and not toward
> > "a better way".
> 
> The checkbox thing, and because its fun, is certainly a big part of it.

OK.  I can relate to that! ;-)

> I agree that a in-guest solution where all capable guests can give away
> pages to others is best because there is no IO overhead. And guests know
> best what pages can be put into the pool.
> 
> Then I think that not all guests are capable enough to contribute their
> free pages. And if host memory is low, then things like swapping can
> solve the problem at hand.

Yes, as George points out, there will always be legacy guests
for which swapping can solve a problem.

Dan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel