[libvirt] RFC: exposing backing store allocation in domain xml

[Peter Krempa]

On 09/12/14 23:30, Eric Blake wrote:
> [revisiting something that finally surfaced to the top of my todo list]
> 
> On 08/07/2014 03:57 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
>> On 08/06/14 18:36, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> Adam Litke has been asking if I can expose watermark information from\
>>
>> <bikeshedding>
>> I'd be glad if we stopped calling this watermark. The wiki
>> disambiguation article states:
>>
>> <citation>
>> A watermark is a recognizable image or pattern in paper used to identify
>> authenticity.
>>
>> Watermark or watermarking can also refer to:
>>
>> In digital watermarks and digital security[edit]
>> Watermark (data file), a method for ensuring data integrity which
>> combines aspects of data hashing and digital watermarking
>> Watermark (data synchronization), directory synchronization related
>> programming terminology
>> High-water mark (computer security),
> 
> We are using it in the sense of high-water mark.  Etymology-wise, it
> goes back to the days of loading boats - you would paint a line called
> the high watermark; as the boat was weighed down with more cargo, you
> had to stop loading when that line touched the water, or risk sinking
> the boat.  In the same vein, someone running on expandable underlying
> storage can let the guest consume until it hits the watermark, at which
> point the storage must be grown to avoid sinking the guest with an
> out-of-space event.
> 
> But I'm open to the idea of any other terminology...  For now, calling
> it allocation is good enough, since that is the term I will be putting
> in the XML.
> 

I think that allocation is fine. High-water mark might be acceptable but
still looks a bit awkward to me.

Peter

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20140916/9bc58f15/attachment-0001.sig>