Re: [libvirt] Need a better word than "allocated" or "ascertained"

CC'ing Balbir.. On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:33:08 +0100, Zdenek Styblik <stybla(a)turnovfree.net&gt; wrote: > On 01/07/2011 10:10 AM, Justin Clift wrote: > > On 07/01/2011, at 6:12 PM, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote: > > <snip> > >>> Guaranteed sounds best to me. > >>> > >> Thats not Gauranteed to the best of my knowlegde > >> > >> Balbir suggest "enforced", I guessed i dropped it somewhere. > >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2010-August/msg00712.html > > > > Balbir's suggested wording (from the email): > > > > "limit to enforce on memory contention" > > > > Does that mean it's the minimum memory "limit" it would really like to > > have, but can't guarantee it? (ie it's not guaranteed) > > I'm getting a bit confused here. "enforced" really doesn't fit into the > context, or does it? > > What should it say/explain? [soft-limit] > Who is target audience? > > And I think the last question is very important, because your technical > mambo-jumbo might be just fine and tip-top to the last bit, but if > nobody else understands it, then such help seems to be a bit helpless to > me. Meaning: > * allocated/guaranteed I can imagine; > * ascertained gave me really non-sense translation, although that might > be caused by crappy dictionary; > * enforced - uh ... how? what? when? Is it when host is running low on > memory and/or there are "many" VMs competing for memory? If so, please > explain it somewhere if it isn't already(yeah, I'm trying to figure out > the meaning). > > Or what happens when memory reaches 'soft-limit'?