On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 08:04:24AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 05:32:48PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 04:03:53PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 03:22:50PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > This is not what we did historically. Why should we start now? > > > > > > It's a matter of whether we still want migration to randomly fail, like > > > what this patch does. > > > > > > Or any better suggestions? I'm definitely open to that. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -- > > > Peter Xu > > > > Randomly is an overstatement. You need to switch between kernels > > where this feature differs. We did it with a ton of features > > in the past, donnu why we single out USO now. > > This has been a problem with a ton of features in the past. We've > ignored the problem, but that doesn't make it the right solution > > With regards, > Daniel Pushing it to domain xml does not really help, migration will still fail unexpectedly (after wasting a ton of resources copying memory, and getting a downtime bump, I might add). The right solution is to have a tool that can query backends, and that given the results from all of the cluster, generate a set of parameters that will ensure migration works. Kind of like qemu-img, but for migration. -- MST
