On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 03:26:49PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 15.09.2012 17:10, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 05:23:16PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > >> [adding qemu] > >> > >> On 09/14/2012 11:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 07:34:50PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > >>>> With this element users will control how SPICE > >>>> server behaves upon migration. For now, there's > >>>> just one attribute 'seamless' turning seamless > >>>> migration on/off/default. > >>> > >>> Ewww, no. This information is a related to a API operation, > >>> not the VM configuration. It should be either auto-detected > >>> by libvirt to the best compatible setting, or passed as a > >>> flag to the virDomainMigrate API call if auto-detection is > >>> not possible. > >> > >> But with the current qemu implementation, there's no way to know if the > >> destination supports this until after you've started the source, and the > >> current implementation in qemu is that you must declare the semantics at > >> the time you start qemu, not at the time you send the 'migrate' monitor > >> command. For libvirt autodetection to work without polluting the domain > >> XML, we'd need to be able to auto-detect at the time we start migration. > >> > >> This sounds like we need to enhance the 'migrate-set-capabilities' > >> command to enable or disable this feature on the fly, according to what > >> libvirt detects from the remote end, rather than hard-coding it to the > >> startup state of qemu on the source side. > > > > Hmm, my understanding of the QEMU flag was different. Based on > > the commit message: > > > > spice: adding seamless-migration option to the command line > > > > The seamless-migration flag is required in order to identify > > whether libvirt supports the new QEVENT_SPICE_MIGRATE_COMPLETED or not > > (by default the flag is off). > > New libvirt versions that wait for QEVENT_SPICE_MIGRATE_COMPLETED should turn on this flag. > > When this flag is off, spice fallbacks to its old migration method, which > > can result in data loss. > > > > > > This says to me that any libvirt which knows about the new > > SPICE_MIGRATE_COMPLETED event, should set the seamless-migration > > flag unconditionally, to indicate that it can handle the event > > and thus the new migration method. It says nothing about only > > setting this flag if the destination QEMU also supports it. > > As such, IMHO, we can & should set this flag unconditonally > > on all QEMUs we run which support it. > > > > If it turns out that this flag does indeed require that the > > destination QEMU also has the same setting, then IMHO this > > flag is a fatally flawed design. At time of starting any QEMU > > instance, we can't know whether the destination QEMU we want > > to migrate to will have the support or not. Compatibility > > checks of this kind can only be decided at time the migrate > > command is actually issued. > > > > > > Daniel > > > > From my investigation I was able to migrate between qemu where one had > seamless_migration=on and the other one didn't support such argument at > all. Literally, on source I've checked out 27af778828db9 (the last > commit in Yonit's patchset) on destination f5bb039c6d97e (the last > before the patchset). Then I've migrated and receive both event and flag > set in query-spice response. So I guess the design is okay. Oh, BTW, when you tested did you have an actual SPICE client connected and did it migrate ok ? Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list