[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 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\

I'd be glad if we stopped calling this watermark. The wiki
disambiguation article states:

A watermark is a recognizable image or pattern in paper used to identify

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

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