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

[Adam Litke]

On 16/09/14 09:29 +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
>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.

I also prefer 'allocation' since it describes the piece of information
being presented rather than something which it might be used for.  

-- 
Adam Litke