On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 04:56:53PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Dan Berrange wrote: > >I don't see the point in this. Libvirt already knows both hostnames > >of the source & destination. > > It's really very hard for libvirt to accurately determine the hostname > of the destination as seen from the source. Consider the case where you > have a multi-homed host with a generic hostname (eg. > "localhost.localdomain" which for some reason is the default on all my > F7 installs). If you have a specific suggestion for how to solve this, > I'd like to hear it. Nope don't have any magic solution offhand. I know its very hard, but punting this problem off to the end user isn't too nice either. Since we've already asked them for 2 hostnames when connecting to the source and destination nodes they would not unreasonably expect to be able to migrate without entering yet more hostnames. > >Probably need one of the 'flags' to indicate whether to do live vs offline > >migration. > > I didn't really understand this. Isn't live vs. offline mutually exclusive? Yes, they're exclusive - you either live migrate, or your offline migrate. I just meant we need some way to express this in the API - or do we just go for always live migrating. I wouldn't have a problem with only doing live migrate, unless someone knows of a compelling reason to require offline migration too. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=| -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list