On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:01:32PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:49:34AM -0700, Dan Smith wrote: > > RJ> Some issues around migration which are up for discussion: > > > > Something else to consider is whether or not we "undefine" hosts > > leaving one machine during a migration. Last time I checked, Xen left > > a domain in "powered-off" state on the source. It seems to make more > > sense to me for a migration to remove the shell domain from the source > > machine. > > > > What will be the expected behavior here? > > That's a good question really. There's definitely an argument to be made > that the guest shoud be undefined on the source to prevent its accidental > restart. yup, I agree > If we wanted to make undefining after migrate compulsory, then doing it > as part of the virDomainMigrate call would make sense. If it was an optional > thing though, one could make use of a flag to virDomainMigrate, or simply > call virDomainUndefine explicitly. I would make it the default to try to provide a default behaviour we can garantee on most hypervisors, and possibly provide an extra flag to try to not undefine if the user has a good reason (and it's supported by the underlying hypervisor) Daniel -- Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/ Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ veillard@xxxxxxxxxx | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list