Re: [libvirt] RFC: exposing backing store allocation in domain xml

On 09/12/14 23:30, Eric Blake wrote: > [revisiting something that finally surfaced to the top of my todo list] > > On 08/07/2014 03:57 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: >> On 08/06/14 18:36, Eric Blake wrote: >>> Adam Litke has been asking if I can expose watermark information from\ >> >> <bikeshedding> >> I'd be glad if we stopped calling this watermark. The wiki >> disambiguation article states: >> >> <citation> >> A watermark is a recognizable image or pattern in paper used to identify >> authenticity. >> >> Watermark or watermarking can also refer to: >> >> In digital watermarks and digital security[edit] >> Watermark (data file), a method for ensuring data integrity which >> combines aspects of data hashing and digital watermarking >> Watermark (data synchronization), directory synchronization related >> programming terminology >> High-water mark (computer security), > > We are using it in the sense of high-water mark. Etymology-wise, it > goes back to the days of loading boats - you would paint a line called > the high watermark; as the boat was weighed down with more cargo, you > had to stop loading when that line touched the water, or risk sinking > the boat. In the same vein, someone running on expandable underlying > storage can let the guest consume until it hits the watermark, at which > point the storage must be grown to avoid sinking the guest with an > out-of-space event. > > But I'm open to the idea of any other terminology... For now, calling > it allocation is good enough, since that is the term I will be putting > in the XML. > I think that allocation is fine. High-water mark might be acceptable but still looks a bit awkward to me.