Adding Memory Overcommitment Manager (MOM) to oVirt

[Adam Litke]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:02:23AM -0400, Ayal Baron wrote:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > So what's the benefit of a separate MOM vs an integrated MOM
> > > > inside
> > > > of VDSM?
> > > 
> > > I'd agree this is really VM policy which should be handled by VDSM.
> > 
> > It's pretty simple. MOM does something valuable today that VDSM
> > doesn't do. An integrated MOM inside of VDSM doesn't exist. If VDSM
> > wants to incorporate MOM that's great. But how is the existence of
> > VDSM an argument against contributing MOM source code to the oVirt
> > community? Am I missing something?
> 
> No one is against accepting MOM into oVirt, on the contrary, we really want
> it.  The only question is do we want to assimilate the code into vdsm or
> manage it as a separate project.  And the question here for me is just whether
> this would have other consumers (in which case a separate project could make
> sense) or would vdsm be the only user (in which case it at most should be a
> submodule).

I think the best way to start is to begin with the projects as they are today
(separate entities).  I do think that we will find uses for MOM outside of a
VDSM scope.  For example, if MOM learns to manage storage and/or networking
tunables, we might want to deploy it onto an appliance where there are no
virtual machines.

-- 
Adam Litke <agl at us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center