Description of problem: due to security considerations, you may want to turn of KSM (Kernel Same Page Merging) for some VMs. It would be cool if this could be achieved via REST/GUI in a simple way. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: See this thread on the users ML: http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/2014-June/025099.html
We saw this won't be closed in a hackathon, returning assignee to SLA stakeholders to rethink.
This is an automated message. This Bugzilla report has been opened on a version which is not maintained anymore. Please check if this bug is still relevant in oVirt 3.5.4. If it's not relevant anymore, please close it (you may use EOL or CURRENT RELEASE resolution) If it's an RFE please update the version to 4.0 if still relevant.
This is an automated message. This Bugzilla report has been opened on a version which is not maintained anymore. Please check if this bug is still relevant in oVirt 3.5.4 and reopen if still an issue.
This is an RFE, thus it was never implemented, and still applies to latest master branch. You should not automatically close RFEs, but retarget them to the last release. Thanks Sven
Target release should be placed once a package build is known to fix a issue. Since this bug is not modified, the target version has been reset. Please use target milestone to plan a fix for a oVirt release.
Since we have a KSM policy per cluster, I'm not sure we are going to invest in per VM policy (one may argue that it's worthwhile to do it per host, as KSM does consume CPU resources from the host). Closing for now, unless we get more demand for such granularity.
Why do you close RFEs without further discussion with the community? was it somehwere decided (where?) that this will never get implemented? are there any informations regarding this topic available to the public?
(In reply to Sven Kieske from comment #7) > Why do you close RFEs without further discussion with the community? My apologies - set my closing comment as private by accident. Should be OK now. > > was it somehwere decided (where?) that this will never get implemented? We are trying to keep a sane list of requests 'alive' (we have over 900) - since no one has done any work on this in the last 1.5 years, and since it did not get more (repeated/escalated) requests in that time frame, I don't think it'll be implemented soon. If you feel differently, we can keep it open for someone to pick it up. > > are there any informations regarding this topic available to the public? I don't think there has been a discussion around this apart from 'it can be done per VM' in the mailing list - which is part of the reason why I've closed it.