On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:39:55PM -0500, Adam Litke wrote:
> Hi all,
> The link above will take you to the oVirt draft proposal for including Memory
> Overcommitment Manager (MOM) as an oVirt sub-project. I wanted to give folks
> this list a chance to discuss MOM and an integration strategy before I ask the
> oVirt board to evaluate the proposal. Please take a look if you can and
> your feedback. Thanks.
Thank you for this opportunity. It is nice to have the pop of MOM around
(sorry, couldn't resist).
All Vdsm currently has in this front is the ability to notify ksmtuned that a
new VM has joined the frill or left it. I would love to have something smarter
than ksmtuned's policy (which MOM's ksm.rules is quite similar ;-)) and
ballooning support which we completely lack.
However I have a concern or two. I must admit that MOM's dynamic policies, and
policy declaration language seems excessive to me. I cannot think of a use case
where a policy cannot be hard-coded in Python as a plugin for a MOM-like daemon.
What is the motivation for writing the policy in a special-purpose language? Is
Vdsm supposed to own MOM's policy and feed MOM with it? Disclaimer: I've only
had few minutes' glimpse at MOM's code.
Note that there is a problem in putting MOM alongside Vdsm since Vdsm is a bit
egotistical in its access to libvirt, and denies libvirt write access from
vdsm-devel mailing list