From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42350 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PnHQP-0001Xc-Gt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:18:10 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PnHQN-0003oE-4k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:18:08 -0500 Received: from grace.univie.ac.at ([131.130.3.115]:40576) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PnHQM-0003ns-SM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:18:07 -0500 Message-ID: <4D53048A.8090208@scripty.at> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 22:18:02 +0100 From: Thomas Treutner MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Migration speed throttling, max_throttle in migration.c References: <4D52D95D.3030300@scripty.at> <4D52F2DE.8070103@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4D52F2DE.8070103@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am 09.02.2011 21:02, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > The reason it's still this today is mainly historic. I've thought about > making the default limit unlimited. I'm not sure if anyone has strong > opinions. Personally, I'd appreciate that. TCP's congestion control when using 100MBit Ethernet seems to work fine (as there are no complaints?) so I see no reason why the bandwidth shouldn't be unlimited in general and TCP should adapt to the available bandwidth. If one wants to limit bandwidth manually, that's possible of course. I don't know if such a change would affect all other existing ways of saving a VM, with different consequences? regards, thomas