Adding Memory Overcommitment Manager (MOM) to oVirt

[Carl Trieloff]

On 09/27/2011 10:32 AM, Adam Litke wrote:
> 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?
>

I'll be sending out a vote mail to include it shortly.

Thanks for being patient as we get our processes worked out.

After the vote, we can get infra requires / lists / projects page
updated etc and whatever else needs needs to be done.

Carl.