From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for Feb 22
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:14:00 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D63FCE8.5020302@codemonkey.ws> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110222173228.GB28717@playa.tlv.redhat.com>
On 02/22/2011 11:32 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 06:06:22PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
>> Looks like Chris will send minutes too,
>> so I didn't do much to polish this,
>> I didn't realise he's doing it until I had this, so
>> here's the braindump: hope it helps.
>>
>> 1. 0.14 postmortem
>> - what went well
>> wiki for planning
>> testing
>> - what can be improved
>> rc - cycle could be longer
>>
>> 2. 0.15 should be end of June
>> July 1?
>> - features:
>> QED
>> other?
>> virtagent? might be blocked by the rpc issue (discussion followed)
>>
>> 3. virtagent rpc
>> what should virtagent use to talk to the world outside of QEMU?
>> Generalize QMP?
>> Use an external rpc library?
>> Do we want to/can we have virtagent out of process?
>> Hard to make well with live migration.
>>
> Spice had (when migration was bidirectional) an external agent (spice client)
> that worked fine with live migration. I agree an external agent makes live
> migration more difficult, but I disagree it is a blocker. It did require bidirectional
> data exchange with qemu, but how is that a problem? why do all migrations have to
> be identical to to-file migrations?
>
I don't understand well enough exactly how this worked in Spice but
there are a few reasons migration is unidirectional. Namely:
1) Round trips during the critical phase add downtime that is
proportional to the latency between two nodes. As a rule, if you had
bidirectional migration, it needs to minimize the number of round trips
to the lowest number possible. Having zero round trips is therefore
always desirable.
2) Migrate-to-file doesn't work if bidirectional communication is required.
3) So far, all forms of bidirectional requirement can be/have been
satisfied by encapsulating the QEMU migration protocol within another
protocol. This use of layering is the preferred approach to extension
and is what the current migration code is designed for.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-22 18:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-22 16:06 KVM call minutes for Feb 22 Michael S. Tsirkin
2011-02-22 17:32 ` [Qemu-devel] " Alon Levy
2011-02-22 18:14 ` Anthony Liguori [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D63FCE8.5020302@codemonkey.ws \
--to=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).