[Libvir] The problem of the definition of tuning informations

beth kon eak at us.ibm.com
Thu Nov 8 19:34:05 UTC 2007

Daniel Veillard wrote:


>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.

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 at us.ibm.com

More information about the libvir-list mailing list