Not sure if it was mentioned, but number of CPUs/cores in a given profile would be nice (it is potentially of similar importance to the architecture). Whilst with clouds as of now are not too interesting in this regard, surely that will change as more cores are crammed onto the harware that people are putting in datacentres. 

I am not a virtualisation expert - but is it reasonable to expect that if a chip has 20 cores, one would not create 20 VMs to dole out based on it? (or am I wrong and virtualisation tech is that efficient??). If so, then # of cpus as a first class value would be nice from an apps point of view when deciding what to run/target. 

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 5:17 AM, David Lutterkort <lutter@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 11:34 -0500, Bob McWhirter wrote:
> So, we need to be able to map an image somehow desires to run, onto a
> bag of virtual hardware to execute it.
>
> And the Hardware Profile describes that bag.

I completely agree - I didn't mean to give the impression that we don't
need arch in HWP.

> It will result in a possible doubling of available hardware profiles,
> but I don't imagine it will.  In Amazon's case, they have exactly 1
> low-end profile for 32bit, and everything else is 64bit.  I don't see
> too many 32-bit huge machines with 1TB storage and 16 virtual CPUs.

Even if it does double the number of HWP, I don't think that's a big
deal. We'll need a way to express those things in HWP's more concisely,
anyway (as was discussed with the memory ballooning that Rimu supports),
and in that revamped HWP description, arch will just become an
enumeration.

David


_______________________________________________
deltacloud-devel mailing list
deltacloud-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/deltacloud-devel



--
Michael D Neale
home: www.michaelneale.net
blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com