From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49125 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PqRMw-0007Hs-Il for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:31:39 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PqRMv-0000rS-AO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:31:38 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24647) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PqRMv-0000qu-2w for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:31:37 -0500 Message-ID: <4D5E8291.7020900@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:30:41 +0100 From: Jes Sorensen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH v6 00/23] virtagent: host/guest RPC communication agent References: <1295270117-24760-1-git-send-email-mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D5BF581.3050803@redhat.com> <4D5C07CB.4040709@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D5CDBD0.2060900@redhat.com> <4D5D3331.1000707@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D5E69EB.5040805@redhat.com> <4D5E7D35.7090207@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4D5E7D35.7090207@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: agl@linux.vnet.ibm.com, stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com, markus_mueller@de.ibm.com, marcel.mittelstaedt@de.ibm.com, Michael Roth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, ryanh@us.ibm.com, abeekhof@redhat.com, Luiz Capitulino On 02/18/11 15:07, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 02/18/2011 06:45 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> It may not be so fundamental, but it still makes me wary. XMLRPC >> handling is quite high level and introduces the potential of errors that >> are outside of our direct control. Personally I don't see the big >> benefit of having virtagent terminate in QEMU, > > Live migration. If it's a separate daemon, then live migration gets fugly. > > If xmlrpc-c is a PoS, then we ought to look at using something else. > But let's understand what's happening first before drawing any conclusions. Urgh, I always do my best to pretend that there is no such thing as live migration :) Never seem to work though :( However if there's an agent connection, it could be arranged in a way allowing the host to reconnect to the guest agent. In that way it really shouldn't be a big deal as long as our agent commands aren't too complex. xmlrpc-c is probably fine, but it introduces a layer of complexity which always makes me worried. Cheers, Jes