Re: Adding Memory Overcommitment Manager (MOM) to oVirt
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 09:53:00AM -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 09/27/2011 09:43 AM, Michael D Day wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> On a related point, there are good examples that argue for
> consolidating function inside a single daemon, and there are good
> counterexamples. It's not always true that every node policy function
> should be integrated within a single daemon. It probably makes sense
> in this case. But again, VDSM doesn't do what MOM does today, which is
> another argument in favor of contributing MOM and letting the
> community work with it.
I think the debate has ascertained that we want it. The question is how
we integrate it... (used by VDSM or additional daemon) I like Dor's
suggestion. Let's let the guys figure out the best way to do an initial
integration given where we are at, we play with it, and if in future we
want to evolve the integration we can.
I completely agree and (boldly perhaps) assume we are driving at a consensus
here. In that case, what are the next steps for MOM from an oVirt project
perspective?
For Hosting, the project happily resides on github. I created a mailing list
using Google Groups, but discussions have mostly been had on other projects'
lists. Although I am not completely opposed to renaming it, I am not sure it's
worth the effort if we can see uses for this project outside of the oVirt
umbrella. Perhaps we can revisit that in the future as things shake out.
A decent next step would be to get MOM included into Fedora. I have a stalled
request that I could use some help moving along:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638647
The package is ready (spec file has been approved) but needs a Fedora package
sponsor who is willing to guide it through the remaining steps of the process.
Anything else?
--
Adam Litke <agl(a)us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center