From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Vincent, Pradeep" Subject: Re: New feature support - xl or xm ? Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 15:49:12 -0700 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ian Jackson , Dulloor List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Thanks Stefano. >>I think that migrating VMs from 'xm hosts' to 'xl hosts' would > work even at the moment, if you use xl on both source and destination > hosts=20 I am not sure what you meant here =AD Are you suggesting retrofit of Oxl=B9= to hosts using older hypervisor. Can migration functionality (including live migration) in Oxl=B9 be designe= d for backward compatibility with Oxm=B9. I am sure this will go a long way i= n helping existing users convert over to Oxl=B9. - Pradeep Vincent On 6/8/10 2:17 AM, "Stefano Stabellini" wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Vincent, Pradeep wrote: >> I haven=B9t looked deeply into Oxl=B9 but.. >>=20 >>> From the recent Xen summit, I walked away thinking Oxl=B9 didn=B9t have= the >>> callback mechanisms (e.g. Cleanup etc) and this >> helped it stay stateless while falling short of full Oxm=B9 replacement.= This >> email thread indicates Oxm/xend=B9 will be >> deprecated in due course of time. Did I miss anything here ? >>=20 >=20 > We intend to port xend to libxl at some point to smooth the migration > path, however xl is going to be where most of the development and > testing is going on, so it is worth considering a switch to xl in any > case. > xl does have the callback mechanisms for cleanup, they are implemented > in a per-VM daemon that is started when you create the domain. > However you can still create a VM without starting the related daemon > (no callbacks or cleanups in that case). >=20 >=20 >> Is migration of VMs from Oxm=B9 managed hosts to Oxl=B9 managed hosts ex= pected to >> work ? >>=20 >> I think moving away from commonly used xend/xm could be a bit of a thorn >> particularly if the Oxm=B9 to Oxl=B9 migration isn=B9t >> expected to work. >>=20 >> Thoughts ? >>=20 >=20 > There are only two things that xl doesn't have compared to xend: the > concept of managed domains (domains that are installed on your system > and may be offline) and an XML-RPC interface. > If you don't need these two things than switching shouldn't be > difficult. > I think that migrating VMs from 'xm hosts' to 'xl hosts' would > work even at the moment, if you use xl on both source and destination > hosts and specify the configuration file you used to create the domain > at the source. In any case it could be made to work without too many > efforts, given that your are not speaking about fully managed domains. >=20