 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-users
Re: [Xen-users] relation between vcpu and domain
| To: | Miguel Filipe <miguel.filipe@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Xen-users] relation between vcpu and domain |
| From: | Diwaker Gupta <diwaker.lists@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:53:30 -0700 |
| Cc: | xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivery-date: | Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:52:34 +0000 |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=UvRNU6v2ogaC7cU/KWQj1nPExpsZY3Ex73UCbe2mUNLprMK2cAphSSH5U3KlnW/EWgBrxJMZFc/5/PMi901tx01rLzIHmWsuN+qqcFRdStkLz7uPYXhwZ2MOdqWf4JDAryKTwQMxFkKlkj/ZPizY1VEjs08zprc10Qd3K4fpkxM= |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <f058a9c30507211620614fa392@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| References: | <891be94105072114216716c0ee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <f058a9c30507211620614fa392@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | Diwaker Gupta <diwaker.lists@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
> what you've said basically is a discription of a design to comprise that a > VPU belongs to only one domain, but each domain can have several VPUs.. > Why should a VPU migrate? From that description I would assume that VPUs > don't migrate from domain.. but they (possibly) can be removed from a domain > has long has this stays with at least one VPU, and can be added to a domain, > if such vpu isn't assigned to a domain yet... Not the VPU, I was suggesting perhaps the domain migrates from one VCPU to another. > If that's true, there wouldn't be SMP for domains, since they are > assossiated with only one VPU. I thought SMP support for guests was still not functional. AFAIK, domains are still pinned to a single CPU. Am I wrong? It'll be great if someone with more authoritative knowledge can shed a light on this :) Diwaker -- Web/Blog/Gallery: http://floatingsun.net _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-users] Re: IPtables support in xen for the domU, Ernst Bachmann |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Xen-users] Which distributed file system for xen hosts/guests?, master |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Xen-users] relation between vcpu and domain, Miguel Filipe |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-users] relation between vcpu and domain, Daniel Hulme |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
