Ted said:
> Patrick or Rob will correct me if I say something bogus, but the intent
> is that resources described by an RSpec are intended to be slicable.
This must-be-sliceable requirement makes no sense to me
and I do not remember ever hearing it before.
Reasons:
-RSpecs are the universal way to describe resources of this type
(computational, network, probably storage, maybe measurment),
including virtual resources (the virtual resources/network requested
by the experimenter) which by definition and practice are clearly not
sliceable.
-The GENI design, docs, and our discussions in the architecture group
explicitly allow "virtualization" through space-sharing as well as
intra-resource slicing. The docs use sensor nodes as onme example,
but there are plenty of cases where it will make sense to do
space-sharing or exclusive assignment, e.g. devices with poor or
costly or not yet developed isolation mechanisms, such as NetFPGAs.
-What's the value and motivation for proposing such a restriction?
John said:
> In a similar manner, two similar resources with similar slice
> granularities may have different isolation properties, which is
> something else we might need to consider in an advertisement of a
> resource.
This is a good point I had not thought of. Could do an arbitrary metric
from 1-N (eg 5), or avoid that with an enumeration of the isolation
mechanisms (vservers, Xen VMs, flow tables, ...)
_______________________________________________
substrate-wg mailing list
substrate-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/substrate-wg
