Re: New feature support - xl or xm ?

["Vincent, Pradeep" <pradeepv@amazon.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3110 bytes --]


Also, was there a compelling reason to move away from the 'xm' interface. Obviously 'xm' is both an API and an implementation and I certainly see the reasons to move away from libxenguest/xend/xm implementation in favor of libxl. But was there a reason to opt for a new 'xl' API as opposed change the implementation behind the established 'xm' API.

Did the 'xm' interface (excluding the implementation) fall short of serving the needs ?

Thanks,

- Pradeep Vincent

On 6/8/10 3:49 PM, "Vincent, Pradeep" <pradeepv@amazon.com> wrote:



Thanks Stefano.

>>I think that migrating VMs from 'xm hosts' to 'xl hosts' would
> work even at the moment, if you use xl on both source and destination
> hosts


I am not sure what you meant here - Are you suggesting retrofit of Oxl' to
hosts using older hypervisor.

Can migration functionality (including live migration) in Oxl' be designed
for backward compatibility with Oxm'. I am sure this will go a long way in
helping existing users convert over to Oxl'.

- Pradeep Vincent



On 6/8/10 2:17 AM, "Stefano Stabellini" <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Vincent, Pradeep wrote:
>> I haven't looked deeply into Oxl' but..
>>
>>> From the recent Xen summit, I walked away thinking Oxl' didn't have the
>>> callback mechanisms (e.g. Cleanup etc) and this
>> helped it stay stateless while falling short of full Oxm' replacement. This
>> email thread indicates Oxm/xend' will be
>> deprecated in due course of time. Did I miss anything here ?
>>
>
> We intend to port xend to libxl at some point to smooth the migration
> path, however xl is going to be where most of the development and
> testing is going on, so it is worth considering a switch to xl in any
> case.
> xl does have the callback mechanisms for cleanup, they are implemented
> in a per-VM daemon that is started when you create the domain.
> However you can still create a VM without starting the related daemon
> (no callbacks or cleanups in that case).
>
>
>> Is migration of VMs from Oxm' managed hosts to Oxl' managed hosts expected to
>> work ?
>>
>> I think moving away from commonly used xend/xm could be a bit of a thorn
>> particularly if the Oxm' to Oxl' migration isn't
>> expected to work.
>>
>> Thoughts ?
>>
>
> There are only two things that xl doesn't have compared to xend: the
> concept of managed domains (domains that are installed on your system
> and may be offline) and an XML-RPC interface.
> If you don't need these two things than switching shouldn't be
> difficult.
> I think that migrating VMs from 'xm hosts' to 'xl hosts' would
> work even at the moment, if you use xl on both source and destination
> hosts and specify the configuration file you used to create the domain
> at the source. In any case it could be made to work without too many
> efforts, given that your are not speaking about fully managed domains.
>


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4240 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel