From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LbRu6-0004Yk-HJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:54:50 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LbRu4-0004YP-4b
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:54:49 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38141 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LbRu3-0004YM-Uv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:54:47 -0500
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:58306)
	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 1LbRu3-0002jj-E2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:54:47 -0500
Received: from jamie by mail2.shareable.org with local (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1LbRu2-0006DO-CK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:54:46 +0000
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:54:46 +0000
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC] More robust migration
Message-ID: <20090223035446.GB23719@shareable.org>
References: <499EBFD8.50307@amd.com> <gnmnun$pq9$1@ger.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <gnmnun$pq9$1@ger.gmane.org>
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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Charles Duffy wrote:
> Andre Przywara wrote:
> >1. Transfer configuration data. Currently there is no VM configuration 
> >data transferred with the stream. One has to start QEMU/KVM with the 
> >_exact_ same parameters on the other side to allow migration. If there 
> >would be a pseudo-device (transferred first) holding these parameters 
> >(and other runtime dependent stuff like kvm_enabled()) this would ease 
> >migration a lot.
> 
> I presently have code which *relies* on the ability to migrate from one 
> VM to a target with different different backing stores for their disk 
> images (albeit sharing the same contents).
> 
> If this ability were to be removed, that would be unfortunate.

Also, how else are we to migrate running systems from qcow2 - which
should never be used but this wasn't obvious before - to raw? :-)

-- Jamie