From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56960)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1ROnW3-0005Oh-Ga
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 04:35:20 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1ROnW2-0001Kq-G2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 04:35:19 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37284)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1ROnW2-0001Ki-71
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 04:35:18 -0500
Message-ID: <4EBCED0C.80601@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:38:20 +0100
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4EBC683C.7090700@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4EBC683C.7090700@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Storage requirements for live migration
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: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>

Am 11.11.2011 01:11, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> I did a brain dump of my understanding of the various storage requirements for 
> live migration.  I think it's accurate but I may have misunderstand some details 
> so I would appreciate review.
> 
> I think given sections (1) and (2), the only viable thing is to require 
> cache=none unless we get new interfaces to flush caches.

Yes, I think we should strongly recommend cache=none/directsync, but not
enforce it. As you said, for clustered filesystems other options should
work, so we should allow users to choose to make use of that.

> Section (3) talks about image formats.  As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, 
> I think the best we can do right now is have a block layer interface to quiesce 
> the image format.  I think reopen may be a viable short term strategy for qcow2 
> but I think for raw, we should just make the quiesce operation a nop.

I don't agree with making it a nop on raw. You say it's safe without any
further action if you avoid online resize, but we don't disallow online
resize during migration, so this is an invalid assumption. And did you
review all the code to make sure that we don't cache more?

I believe it's better anyway to have all formats behave the same.

Kevin