From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vincent Hanquez Subject: Re: Re: oxenstored in stubdom ? Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 10:14:10 +0100 Message-ID: <4C70EA62.8000807@eu.citrix.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-2"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=A3ukasz_Ole=B6?= , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 22/08/10 09:23, Keir Fraser wrote: > On 22/08/2010 08:34, "Vincent Hanquez" > wrote: > >>> 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 >> was broken), so from a xenstore point of view, you could already restart >> dom0; Obviously this would block all the domains that try to do a >> xenstore query, but if the dom0 is restarted quickly enough this >> shouldn't be too noticeable since a normal working domain shouldn't use >> much xenstore after starting up. > > So that's "very probably restartable" then? ;-) well yes, "very probably" is pretty good odds i think. :p more seriously, it depends from which perspective you're looking at the dom0 restart problem. But according to previous experience during oxenstored development, i'm pretty sure that oxenstored would cope and that most of the problems are elsewhere in the stack. moving oxenstored to a stubdomain is almost orthogonal (roughly 89 degrees.) -- Vincent