> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel P. Berrange [mailto:berrange@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 9:17 PM > > > > > > I just don't see this as a compelling feature. I think it is more important > > > to have a single canonical representation of memory allocation. User > > > convenience is something for higher level tools to worry about. > > > > But do higher level tools already have a way to query libvirt what the > > current host's available ram is, in order to determine percentages > > itself? We can't really migrate online LXC guests, but for an offline > > guest setup, copying XML from one host with small memory to another host > > with large memory, and still having the guest have a fixed percentage of > > the host resources (more memory assigned to the guest on the larger > > host), seems like a reasonable desire; to achieve that, the management > > tool needs to be able to either request percentages (no change to the > > guest xml being copied) or know the host resource limits (and rewrite > > the xml rather than merely copy it). > > We do have APIs for querying host RAM, but if we wanted this, which I > don't think we do, then tmpfs RAM % would want to be relative to guest > RAM allocation not host RAM. It doesn't make sense to have guest XML > whose semantics differ according to the host environment - they should > be self-contained. If we could set tmpfs RAM % according to guest memory allocation(domain/memory section), does that make sense? > > Daniel > -- > |: http://berrange.com -o- > http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| > |: http://libvirt.org -o- > http://virt-manager.org :| > |: http://autobuild.org -o- > http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| > |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- > http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list