On 03/12/2012 02:12 PM, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 03/12/2012 09:01 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
It's a trade off. From a RAS perspective, it's helpful to have
information about the host available in the guest.
If you're already exposing a compatible family, exposing the actual
processor seems to be worth the extra effort.
only if the entire cluster is (and will be?) identical cpu.
At least in my experience, this isn't unusual.
or if you don't care about live migration i guess, which could be hte
case for
clouds, then again, not sure a cloud provider would want to expose the
physical
cpu to the tenant.
Depends on the type of cloud you're building, I guess.
ovirt allows to set "cpu family" per cluster. assume tomorrow it could
do it an
even more granular way.
it could also do it automatically based on subset of flags on all
hosts - but
would it really make sense to expose a set of capabilities which
doesn't exist
in the real world (which iiuc, is pretty much aligned with the cpu
families?),
that users understand?
No, I think the lesson we've learned in QEMU (the hard way) is that
exposing a CPU that never existed will cause something to break. Often
times, that something is glibc or GCC which tends to be rather epic in
terms of failure.
good to hear - I think this is the important part.
so from that perspective, cpu families sounds the right abstraction
for general
use case to me.
for ovirt, could improve on smaller/dynamic subsets of migration
domains rather
than current clusters
and sounds like you would want to see "expose host cpu for non migratable
guests, or for identical clusters".
Would it be possible to have a "best available" option in oVirt-engine
that would assume that all processors are of the same class and fail an
attempt to add something that's an older class?
I think that most people probably would start with "best available" and
then after adding a node fails, revisit the decision and start lowering
the minimum CPU family (I'm assuming that it's possible to modify the
CPU family over time).