From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LbRrF-0003fm-KI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:51:53 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LbRrC-0003fa-6x
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:51:53 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57870 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LbRrC-0003fX-1e
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:51:50 -0500
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:58300)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1LbRrB-0002V5-LP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:51:49 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:51:40 +0000
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration
Message-ID: <20090223035140.GA23719@shareable.org>
References: <499EBFD8.50307@amd.com> <200902201609.11547.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<20090220163820.GC9726@shareable.org>
	<200902201647.27138.paul@codesourcery.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200902201647.27138.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Paul Brook wrote (about resuming snapshots on a different QEMU):
> I'm not saying it's a useless feature, just that it's very extremely
> to do reliably, and for that reason unlikely to happen. An
> unreliable implementation (i.e. one that claims to migrate/snapshot,
> then breaks some of the time) is IMHO worse than nothing.

Well, one which cannot resume from a snapshot at all unless you have
the original host and original QEMU/KVM around is pretty bad.

I've already been bitten by that, and had to throw a useful guest
snapshot away because of it.

But I've also been bitten by it resuming in a faulty manner across
QEMU versions, so I appreciate both points of view.

-- Jamie