From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vincent Hanquez Subject: Re: oxenstored in stubdom ? Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 08:34:08 +0100 Message-ID: <4C70D2F0.8080507@eu.citrix.com> References: <201008220039.11900.lukaszoles@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201008220039.11900.lukaszoles@gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: =?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBPbGXFmw==?= Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 21/08/10 23:39, =C5=81ukasz Ole=C5=9B wrote: > Hi, > > recently on irc channel (##xen) was some "discussion" about xen vs kvm.= .. > > There was idea that it would be nice if domUs could survive dom0 restar= t, but > this needs, for example, to have xenstored running in separate domain. > > In 2009 Alex Zeffertt posted some patches > (http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-04/msg00696.ht= ml) to > add this functionallity, but they weren't applied. > > So.. having xenstore in separate domain can have other advantages > (performance?). > Is it (or will be) possible run oxenstroed in stubdomain? oxenstored is already restartable (or used to be and easy to fix if it=20 was broken), so from a xenstore point of view, you could already restart=20 dom0; Obviously this would block all the domains that try to do a=20 xenstore query, but if the dom0 is restarted quickly enough this=20 shouldn't be too noticeable since a normal working domain shouldn't use=20 much xenstore after starting up. Regarding performance nobody profiled oxenstored in this context as far=20 as i know; I'm not sure that would be a win, and i would much rather=20 squeeze performance in the code directly than move xenstored in a=20 complicated setup. --=20 Vincent