From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:42700) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ri6kI-0003Mu-DH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:57:51 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ri6kH-00028J-Gv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:57:50 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60848) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ri6kH-000282-AI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:57:49 -0500 Message-ID: <4F03254E.5020204@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:57:02 +0200 From: Orit Wasserman MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1325604879-15862-1-git-send-email-owasserm@redhat.com> <1325604879-15862-9-git-send-email-owasserm@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 8/9] QMP commands changes List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: blauwirbel@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, quintela@redhat.com On 01/03/2012 05:47 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Orit Wasserman wrote: >> + .args_type = "detach:-d,blk:-b,inc:-i,xbrle:-x,uri:s", >> + .params = "[-d] [-b] [-i] [-x] uri", >> + .help = "migrate to URI" >> + "\n\t -d to not wait for completion" >> + "\n\t -b for migration without shared storage with" >> + " full copy of disk" >> + "\n\t -i for migration without" >> + " shared storage with incremental copy of disk" >> + " (base image shared between source and destination)" >> + "\n\t -x to use XBRLE page delta compression", > > It's too bad that this algorithm is user-visible and needs to be > expicitly enabled/disabled. I think it would be useful in a much > wider range of cases if the trade-offs were understood well enough so > that QEMU can include a threshold or heuristic which chooses the > migration algorithm behind the scenes. I agree that an automatic switching on/off XBRLE is very desirable. At the first phase we merge it as a user option, and the in the next phase will be adding the part that switch it on/off. > > I'm afraid that locking XBRLE behind an explicit option means we're > merging dead code. What do you think? Even as a user option this option will be useful , in many cases users are aware of their workload and can set this option on. Orit > > Stefan