Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Make "xm mem-set" be lower bound on domX-min-mem

[Gareth S Bestor <bestor@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>...shrinking to <2% of original allocation is a very bad idea

An absolute limit might be easier to handle - and expose to users - than a relative one, especially up-front in CIM where it exposes min/max limits on resource allocations. Or is it really <2% of whatever the original memory allocation is when things go to kabluwey... ?

BTW - at the moment we are exposing a 16MB minimum DomU memory size thru our CIM providers resource allocation defaults, although this is more a hint than anything actually enforced; the mgmt client can still pass in whatever value they like and we (CIM) will blindly pass it along to xm create ...

- Gareth

Dr. Gareth S. Bestor
IBM Linux Technology Center
M/S DES2-01
15300 SW Koll Parkway, Beaverton, OR 97006
503-578-3186, T/L 775-3186, Fax 503-578-3186

Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

05/20/06 01:26 AM

To	Gareth S Bestor/Beaverton/IBM@IBMUS
cc	xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject	Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Make "xm mem-set" be lower bound on domX-min-mem

>  Unless there is an known *architectural* limit in Xen on the lower 
> bound of the memory for a guest DomU, then I agree - xend
>  shouldn't impose an arbitrary one simply to act as 'hard hint' to 
> prevent stupid users from doing stupid things
>  (give 'em all the rope they want I say! :-) Care-and-feeding of naive 
> users is best left to tools higher up the mgmt stack (IMO).

I agree with this. I'm also not sure about putting a lower bound in the 
balloon driver, but at least there we know that shrinking to <2% of 
original allocation is a very bad idea with very high probability.

  -- Keir

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel