[VOTE] Inclusion of memory overcommit manager

[Anthony Liguori]

On 09/28/2011 08:49 AM, Michael D Day wrote:
>
> board-bounces at ovirt.org wrote on 09/28/2011 05:44:56 AM:
>>
>> my main concern is if this is going to be "the" policy engine for vdsm
>> going forward, is if it shouldn't be established on something which is a
>> rule based technology (say, pacemaker).
>
> I think this is way too much speculation. I don't think anyone has proposed
> that MOM should be a general-purpose policy engine or that it should be
> "the" policy engine for VDSM.

I think the reason for the speculation is that we aren't being formal enough in 
our proposals.  I think Fedora Features are a good model for making proposals 
like this:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Proposals

I'll work on some ovirt wiki pages for a similar project inclusion template this 
afternoon.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

  In fact Adam pointed out that in some actual
> deployments MOM is used discretely from VDSM and that is a concrete
> advantage of having a separate daemon. Further, redesigning the project or
> proposing a re-implementation on a different technology base is way beyond
> the discussion. In fact, that latter suggestion in particular is something
> that the MOM project should consider. The former (inclusion into VDSM) is
> something the VDSM project should consider.
>
> +1
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
> Mike Day
> IBM Distinguished Engineer
> Chief Virtualization Architect, Open Systems Development
> Cell: +1 919 371-8786 | mdday at us.ibm.com
> http://code.ncultra.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board