Re: [Libvir] The problem of the definition of tuning informations

Daniel Veillard wrote: <snip> > > >My opinion: >----------- > >We need better tools, even for simple use case to be able to save >an existing tuning for a domain or a full machine, and reload it >when needed. This is IMHO better done on top of the existing API >which already have the entry points to implement them. My idea is >to provide tuning commands in virsh [5]. If you implement tuning both >at creation time and in the tool, this mean you either make them >different in which case you have no coherency between what you say >when you create a domain or save its config and what you do at the >virsh level. If you don't make it different (for example trying to >use the same kind of XML syntax), then you need code for doing this >both in the tool and in the library itself, or you export as a >new API the tuning load and save. Exporting as a parallel API what >we have already for scheduling and VCPU affinity makes the API >more complex, and less coherent. > > > Daniel, Just to be sure I understand, are you suggesting removing tuning information from any configuration file and making it a runtime exercise to set it up? (That is, after the domain has been started)