From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Kxnlf-0006TA-T3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:10:16 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Kxnle-0006S4-20
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:10:15 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49865 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kxnld-0006Ru-A5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:10:13 -0500
Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.92.145]:36810)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Kxnld-0005xI-0Z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:10:13 -0500
Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so129912qwc.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:10:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4911EF90.5000103@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:10:08 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Live migration - exec: support to be
	reintroduced?
References: <geqq17$om7$1@ger.gmane.org>	<49113157.3090101@codemonkey.ws>	<4911514C.1070300@redhat.com>	<4911A934.9040007@codemonkey.ws>	<20081105141901.GL25523@redhat.com>	<4911B7D2.2050304@codemonkey.ws>
	<gesq6i$log$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <gesq6i$log$1@ger.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> This isn't for snapshotting, so checkpointing of storage is 
>>> unneccessary.
>>> This is just straight save+restore, akin to hibernate-to-disk for a 
>>> physical machine.   
>>
>> This is a fundamentally broken concept.  You cannot just save the 
>> guest's memory state without saving the current state of the storage.
>
> Oh -- let me follow up on how this works in libvirt:
>
> The "save" and "restore" commands shut down and start the VM when 
> invoked; consequently, no storage changes are made while the VM is 
> down. Restoring more than once off the same "save" is not an intended 
> use case.

I see, that makes more sense then.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
>