On Thu, 2015-10-22 at 18:58 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Alex Williamson > <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This is why the typical VF agnostic approach here is to using bonding > > and fail over to a emulated device during migration, so performance > > suffers, but downtime is something acceptable. > > bonding in the VM isn't a zero touch solution, right? is it really acceptable? The bonding solution requires configuring the bond in the guest and doing the hot unplug/re-plug around migration. It's zero touch in that it works on current code with any PF/VF, but it's certainly not zero configuration in the guest. Is what acceptable? The configuration? The performance? The downtime? I don't think we can hope to improve on the downtime of an emulated device, but obviously the configuration and performance are not always acceptable or we wouldn't be seeing so many people working on migration of assigned devices. Thanks, Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
