Il 18/07/2012 22:17, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
Looks like a good change. My only question would be if its better to
look up the guest video RAM instead of assuming that QEMU overhead +
guest video RAM will amount to no more than about 200MB (I say about
because of the 1.02 fudge
On 07/19/2012 08:10 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 18/07/2012 22:17, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
Looks like a good change. My only question would be if its better to
look up the guest video RAM instead of assuming that QEMU overhead +
guest video RAM will amount to no more than about 200MB (I
On 07/19/2012 05:10 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 18/07/2012 22:17, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
Looks like a good change. My only question would be if its better to
look up the guest video RAM instead of assuming that QEMU overhead +
guest video RAM will amount to no more than about 200MB (I
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:14:43PM -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Michal Privoznik mpriv...@redhat.com
wrote:
If there's a memory leak in qemu or qemu is exploited the host's
system will sooner or later start trashing instead of killing
the bad process.
If there's a memory leak in qemu or qemu is exploited the host's
system will sooner or later start trashing instead of killing
the bad process. This however has impact on performance and other
guests as well. Therefore we should set a reasonable RSS limit
even when user hasn't set any. It's better
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Michal Privoznik mpriv...@redhat.com wrote:
If there's a memory leak in qemu or qemu is exploited the host's
system will sooner or later start trashing instead of killing
the bad process. This however has impact on performance and other
guests as well.
