| 2008-07-23 19:15:52 |
Richard Laager |
description |
Imagine a host with 4 CPUs and 4 GB of RAM. Imagine a guest with one CPU and 512 MB of RAM. If it maxes out its resources, it'll show as using 25% CPU and 12.5% of RAM. This is relative to the host, but that's not really meaningful when you're looking at the guest. Instead, those numbers should be relative to the guest, so it'd be 100% and 100%. As a special case, when the minimum and maximum RAM are the same, it should just show the amount (512 MB) because a constant 100% isn't really useful.
The numbers on the main virt-manager screen (as opposed to on the detail of a specific host) are harder to define. I could see why one might want those relative to the host. If there's no clear consensus, both sets of numbers should be shown there.
The line for the host should definitely show the numbers relative to the host, like it does now. |
Imagine a host with 4 CPUs and 4 GB of RAM. Imagine a guest with one CPU and 512 MB of RAM. If it maxes out its resources, it'll show as using 25% CPU and 12.5% of RAM. This is relative to the host, but that's not really meaningful when you're looking at the guest. Instead, those numbers should be relative to the guest, so it'd be 100% and 100%. As a special case, when the startup and maximum RAM are the same, it should just show the amount (512 MB) because a constant 100% isn't really useful.
The numbers on the main virt-manager screen (as opposed to on the detail of a specific host) are harder to define. I can make a case for both sets of numbers. I would argue that both should be available (in separate columns), but the relative-to-guest columns should be hidden by default. |
|
