From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: qemu and qemu.git -> Migration + disk stress introduces qcow2 corruptions Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:01:39 -0600 Message-ID: <4EBAEA33.9090709@codemonkey.ws> References: <4EBAAA68.10801@redhat.com> <4EBAACAF.4080407@codemonkey.ws> <4EBAB236.2060409@redhat.com> <4EBAB9FA.3070601@codemonkey.ws> <20111109201836.GA28457@redhat.com> <4EBAE0EA.1030405@codemonkey.ws> <20111109210052.GB28599@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues , Kevin Wolf , KVM mailing list , Juan Jose Quintela Carreira , Marcelo Tosatti , QEMU devel , Avi Kivity To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20111109210052.GB28599@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 11/09/2011 03:00 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 02:22:02PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> On 11/09/2011 02:18 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 11:35:54AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>> On 11/09/2011 11:02 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: >>>>> On 11/09/2011 06:39 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Migration with qcow2 is not a supported feature for 1.0. Migration is >>>>>> only supported with raw images using coherent shared storage[1]. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] NFS is only coherent with close-to-open which right now is not >>>>>> good enough for migration. >>>>> >>>>> Say what? >>>> >>>> Due to block format probing, we read at least the first sector of >>>> the disk during start up. >>> >>> A simple solution is not to do any probing before the VM is first >>> started on the incoming path. >>> >>> Any issues with this? >>> >> >> http://mid.gmane.org/1284213896-12705-4-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com >> I think Kevin wanted open to get delayed. >> >> Regards, >> >> Anthony Liguori > > So, this patchset just needs to be revived and polished up? What I took from the feedback was that Kevin wanted to defer open until the device model started. That eliminates the need to reopen or have a invalidation callback. I think it would be good for Kevin to comment here though because I might have misunderstood his feedback. Regards, Anthony Liguori >