From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Peter Lieven <pl@dlhnet.de>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, quintela@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] big wait check in ram_save_iterate()
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:05:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50CDD532.6020402@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50CC5CF2.2040606@dlhnet.de>
Il 15/12/2012 12:20, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
> Am 15.12.2012 10:02, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>>
>>> is the check for spending > 50ms in the loop still necessary in qemu
>>> 1.3.0?
>>
>> Yes, it helps finding the available bandwidth and tuning the downtime of
>> migration.
>
> Aha, okay. But then it should also be added to block migration, shoudn't it?
The main problem with block migration is that it uses the same strategy
for RAM and storage migration, but the two are very different.
In RAM migration, you are basically fighting an uphill battle. You
cannot do RAM migration without some amount of downtime, because CPUs
are always going to be faster than the migration process and latency is
zero.
But in storage migration you have the same constraints as the guest.
Disk is slow for the guest too (and as slow as network, or slower). The
guest needs to flush to disk, while the migration process does not need
to do that. And migration can proceed asynchronously, just like the
guest, with multiple in-flight operations at the same time.
drive-mirror can do all this much better than migration, and without
slowing down RAM migration (which occurs on a separate socket). See the
drive-mirror patches that I posted recently for 1.4. With those
patches, I can sync the destination to the source every 100 ms during a
kernel compilation, and every 1-2 seconds during hibernation (the
absolute worst case) using iSCSI for both the source and the target and
a middle-range SAS disk. This is a far cry from what RAM migration can
achieve on any reasonable workload, and it's the reason why I'm pushing
for a separate mechanism than the migrate command.
libvirt has had patches posted to support this too.
Paolo
> I tested it in qemu-kvm 1.2.0 and it help to increase responsiveness if the
> I/O latency on the storage is high.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-16 14:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-14 18:14 [Qemu-devel] big wait check in ram_save_iterate() Peter Lieven
2012-12-15 9:02 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-12-15 11:20 ` Peter Lieven
2012-12-16 14:05 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50CDD532.6020402@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=pl@dlhnet.de \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=quintela@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).