From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Harry Butterworth Subject: Re: Another migration question Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:29:50 +0000 Message-ID: <1111073390.848.7.camel@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Sender: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: mark.williamson@cl.cam.ac.uk Cc: Stefan Berger , xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 14:31 +0000, M.A. Williamson wrote: > USB is a little trickier because there isn't a straightforward way to > ensure the guest can still access the device after the migration nor to > make the process transparent to the guest USB stack. For this reason, USB > doesn't support suspend, so you can't suspend a USB frontend domain. We can > probably do a bit better e.g. fake out port disconnects on suspend then > allow a device reconnect on resume - it won't be transparent but it'll be > more useful. If the inter-domain communication interface was network transparent it would allow you to migrate a domain within a cluster for load-balancing whilst leaving the usb devices where they were. Harry. ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click