On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:34:42PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:01:36 -0500 > Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I'm not at all convinced that postcopy is a good idea. There needs a clear > > expression of what the value proposition is that's backed by benchmarks. Those > > benchmarks need to include latency measurements of downtime which so far, I've > > not seen. > > > > I don't want to take any postcopy patches until this discussion happens. > > FWIW: > > I rather see postcopy as a way of migrating guests forcibly and I know > a service in which such a way is needed: emergency migration. There is > also a product which does live migration when some hardware problems are > detected (as a semi-FT solution) -- in such cases, we cannot wait until > the guest becomes calm. Ignoring max downtime values when we've determined that the target is no longer converging would be another option. Essentially having a use_strict_max_downtime that can be set on a per-migration basis, where if not set we can "give up" on maintaining the max_downtime when it's been determined that progress is no longer being made. > > Although I am not certain whether QEMU can be used for such products, > it may be worth thinking about. > > Thanks, > Takuya > -- 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
