On 03/12/2012 10:19 PM, Ayal Baron wrote:
----- Original Message -----
On 03/12/2012 02:12 PM, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 03/12/2012 09:01 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
It's a trade off. From a RAS perspective, it's helpful to have
information about the host available in the guest.
If you're already exposing a compatible family, exposing the
actual
processor seems to be worth the extra effort.
only if the entire cluster is (and will be?) identical cpu.
At least in my experience, this isn't unusual.
I can definitely see places choosing homogeneous hardware and upgrading every few years.
Giving them max capabilities for their cluster sounds logical to me.
Esp. cloud providers.
they would get same performance as from the matching "cpu family".
only difference would be if the guest known the name of the host cpu.
or if you don't care about live migration i guess, which could be
hte case for
clouds, then again, not sure a cloud provider would want to expose
the physical
cpu to the tenant.
Depends on the type of cloud you're building, I guess.
Wouldn't this affect a simple startup of a VM with a different CPU (if motherboard changed as well cause reactivation issues in windows and fun things like that)?
that's an interesting question, I have to assume this works though,
since we didn't see issues with changing the cpu family for guests so far.
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list