On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 02:33:28PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 06:39:56AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > Well if you have 100 guests, that may be slower, but in the average > > situation > > of only a couple of guests, it could be a real speedup. The problem is that > > a lot of domain may accumulate in xenstore /local/domain even if they are > > not running, both implementation are likely to have completely different > > behaviour based on the context. But from a cache locality perspective > > hitting > > xenstore may scale way better under loaded machines, so it may prove faster > > even on machines with hundreds of domains. Doing a fair performance > > comparison > > may prove really hard. > > Actually the /local/domain/[ID] subtree is guarenteed to only contain running > VMs. The /vm/[UUID] subtree is where cruft accumulates over time, so its safe > to rely on info in the former, but not the latter
Ah, right, I somehow remembered some nastyness there, but it wasn't precise :-) Daniel -- Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/ Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
