From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:60519)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1RBLtB-00045t-EL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 03:27:38 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1RBLtA-0007g7-7A
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 03:27:37 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:4859)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1RBLtA-0007g1-04
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 03:27:36 -0400
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:28:38 -0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20111005112837.GA6501@redhat.com>
References: <1316443309-23843-1-git-send-email-mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<4E88C7DB.9090105@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20111002210802.GC8072@redhat.com> <4E89B0D4.3090203@us.ibm.com>
	<20111003133802.GD18920@redhat.com>
	<4E89BDCE.2010502@codemonkey.ws>
	<20111003144109.GE19689@redhat.com>
	<4E89CE20.6050706@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E89CE20.6050706@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] New Migration Protocol using Visitor
	Interface
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, owasserm@redhat.com, Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Michael Roth <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com

On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 10:00:48AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >Yes, it's easy to quantify. I think the following gives us
> >the offset before and after, so the difference is the size
> >we seek, right?

OK, Orit (Cc'd) did some research - this is a booting
while still in grub, size probably does not get much less than that.
windows is said to be much more aggressive in allocating memory.

 start offset: 9600673
 end offset: 9614933

So we get 15K out of 9M.
By the way, most of the memory here is pretty much
all uniform I guess, because compressing it gets us:
gzip: 1934169
bzip2 -9: 1462551

So even with aggressive compression, we probably won't be able to get
below 1.5M for memory, two orders of magnitude above device state.

Sounds convincing?

-- 
MST