[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

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

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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]