From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takuya Yoshikawa Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for Tuesday, June 19th Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:34:42 +0900 Message-ID: <20120619233442.d9e64a17f9a29d9ed3faff49@gmail.com> References: <87r4tchcmo.fsf@elfo.mitica> <8762anl84w.fsf@elfo.mitica> <4FE08640.3060400@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: quintela@redhat.com, KVM devel mailing list , Orit Wasserman , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Michael Roth , Isaku Yamahata To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:45205 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751413Ab2FSOer (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:34:47 -0400 Received: by pbbrp8 with SMTP id rp8so9734246pbb.19 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:34:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FE08640.3060400@codemonkey.ws> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:01:36 -0500 Anthony Liguori 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. Although I am not certain whether QEMU can be used for such products, it may be worth thinking about. Thanks, Takuya