[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/2] Attempt to implement the standby feature for
From: |
Michael S. Tsirkin |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/2] Attempt to implement the standby feature for assigned network devices |
Date: |
Wed, 5 Dec 2018 15:58:45 -0500 |
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 02:44:38PM -0600, Michael Roth wrote:
> > So how important is it that setting F_STANDBY cap doesn't break older
> > guests? If the idea is to support live migration with VFs then aren't
> > we still dead in the water if the guest boots okay but doesn't have
> > the requisite functionality to be migrated later? Shouldn't that all
>
> Well, I guess that's not really the scenario with this approach. Instead
> they'd run with degraded network performance but could still at least be
> migrated.
Thanks, that's a good summary. And instead of degraded we call it
un-accelerated.
--
MST
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/2] Attempt to implement the standby feature for assigned network devices, Michael Roth, 2018/12/05
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/2] Attempt to implement the standby feature for assigned network devices, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2018/12/05
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/2] Attempt to implement the standby feature for assigned network devices, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2018/12/06
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/2] Attempt to implement the standby feature for assigned network devices, Eduardo Habkost, 2018/12/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/2] Attempt to implement the standby feature for assigned network devices, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2018/12/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/2] Attempt to implement the standby feature for assigned network devices, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2018/12/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/2] Attempt to implement the standby feature for assigned network devices, Roman Kagan, 2018/12/07
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/2] Attempt to implement the standby feature for assigned network devices, Michael S. Tsirkin, 2018/12/07