From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [RFC]VM live snapshot proposal Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 14:19:37 +0100 Message-ID: <53148169.6060700@redhat.com> References: <615092B2FD0E7648B6E4B43E029BCFB84D578044@SZXEMA503-MBS.china.huawei.com> <20140303123234.GC21055@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <20140303125520.GF4850@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Huangpeng (Peter)" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , Wenchao Xia , Pavel Hrdina , KVM devel mailing list , Zhanghailiang To: Kevin Wolf , Stefan Hajnoczi Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49407 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754226AbaCCNUx (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:20:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20140303125520.GF4850@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Il 03/03/2014 13:55, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: >>> > > Due to memory-modifications may happen in kvm, qemu, or vhost, the key-part is how we >>> > > can provide common page-modify-tracking-and-saving api, we completed a prototype by >>> > > simply add modified-page tracking/saving function in qemu, and it seems worked fine. >> > >> > Yes, this is the tricky part. To be honest, I think this is the reason >> > no one has submitted patches - it's a hard task and the win isn't that >> > great (you can already migrate to file). > So why don't we simply reuse the existing migration code? I think this is different in the same way that block-backup and block-mirror are different. Huangpeng's proposal would let you make a consistent snapshot of disks and RAM. Paolo