On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/11/2010 11:39 AM, Cam Macdonell wrote: >> >> Most of the people I hear from who are using my patch are using a peer >> model to share data between applications (simulations, JVMs, etc). >> But guest-to-host applications work as well of course. >> >> I think "transparent migration" can be achieved by making the >> connected/disconnected state transparent to the application. >> >> When using the shared memory server, the server has to be setup anyway >> on the new host and copying the memory region could be part of that as >> well if the application needs the contents preserved. I don't think >> it has to be handled by the savevm/loadvm operations. There's little >> difference between naming one VM the master or letting the shared >> memory server act like a master. >> > > Except that to make it work with the shared memory server, you need the > server to participate in the live migration protocol which is something I'd > prefer to avoid at it introduces additional down time. Fair enough, then to move to a resolution on this can we either not support migration at this point, which leaves us free to add it later as migration use cases become better understand. (my preference) OR 1 - not support migration when the server is used 2 - if role=master is specified in the non-server case, then that guest will copy the memory with it. If role=peer is specified, the guest will use the shared memory object on the destination host as is (possibly creating it or output an error if memory object doesn't exist). Cam -- 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
