From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LOz68-0008Ep-L5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:43:45 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LOz67-0008E8-DK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:43:43 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53652 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LOz66-0008DG-D1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:43:42 -0500 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:33118) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LOz65-000268-Sr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:43:42 -0500 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0JIhf8R025899 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:43:41 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n0JIheCl006244 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:43:41 -0500 Received: from dhcp-1-237.tlv.redhat.com (dhcp-1-237.tlv.redhat.com [10.35.1.237]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0JIheGw023736 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:43:40 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:41:56 +0200 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] Stop VM on ENOSPC error. Message-ID: <20090119184156.GA30712@redhat.com> References: <20090118110509.GG11299@redhat.com> <18804.27240.886522.337700@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <4974A704.3070605@codemonkey.ws> <18804.46780.936806.748045@mariner.uk.xensource.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18804.46780.936806.748045@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 05:22:04PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > But in the Xen context, a Xen VM is not a `task' in the same way. > (Xen users make much less use of the built-in cow formats for this > reason, often preferring LVM snapshots or even deeper storage magic.) > We expect the VM to be up and stay up and if it can't continue it > needs to fail or crash. > Even if you can add storage space dynamically with LVM you prefer VM to crash on ENOSPC? -- Gleb.