[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration
From: |
Paul Brook |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:09:11 +0000 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.9 |
> > In general I would like to know whether QEMU migration is intended to
> > be used in such a flexible manner or whether the requirement of the
> > exact same software version on both side is not a limitation in
> > everyday use.
>
> My primary goal for migration is robustness. I do not think it's a good
> idea to support any circumstances that could introduce changes in guest
> visible state during a live migration.
>
> Live migration is a critical feature for many production environments.
> To be useful IMHO, it has to be bullet-proof.
I agree.
I suspect that in practice live migration of a VM between different qemu
versions ends up comparable to in-place live kernel upgrades. i.e. it takes
an awful lot of work and care to make it happen, and in practice isn't going
to happen for any particularly useful span of versions.
Paul
- [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Andre Przywara, 2009/02/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Anthony Liguori, 2009/02/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration,
Paul Brook <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Jamie Lokier, 2009/02/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Paul Brook, 2009/02/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Jamie Lokier, 2009/02/22
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Paul Brook, 2009/02/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Jamie Lokier, 2009/02/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Paul Brook, 2009/02/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Anthony Liguori, 2009/02/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Avi Kivity, 2009/02/24
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Jamie Lokier, 2009/02/20