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 16:37:01 -0700 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0814013028==" 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: "Vincent, Pradeep" , Stefano Stabellini Cc: Ian, "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Jackson , Dulloor List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============0814013028== Content-Language: en Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C834222D17B96pradeepvamazoncom_" --_000_C834222D17B96pradeepvamazoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also, was there a compelling reason to move away from the 'xm' interface. O= bviously 'xm' is both an API and an implementation and I certainly see the = reasons to move away from libxenguest/xend/xm implementation in favor of li= bxl. But was there a reason to opt for a new 'xl' API as opposed change the= implementation behind the established 'xm' API. Did the 'xm' interface (excluding the implementation) fall short of serving= the needs ? Thanks, - Pradeep Vincent On 6/8/10 3:49 PM, "Vincent, Pradeep" wrote: 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 I am not sure what you meant here - Are you suggesting retrofit of Oxl' to hosts using older hypervisor. Can migration functionality (including live migration) in Oxl' be designed for backward compatibility with Oxm'. I am sure this will go a long way in helping existing users convert over to Oxl'. - Pradeep Vincent On 6/8/10 2:17 AM, "Stefano Stabellini" wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Vincent, Pradeep wrote: >> I haven't looked deeply into Oxl' but.. >> >>> From the recent Xen summit, I walked away thinking Oxl' didn't have the >>> callback mechanisms (e.g. Cleanup etc) and this >> helped it stay stateless while falling short of full Oxm' replacement. T= his >> email thread indicates Oxm/xend' will be >> deprecated in due course of time. Did I miss anything here ? >> > > 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). > > >> Is migration of VMs from Oxm' managed hosts to Oxl' managed hosts expect= ed to >> work ? >> >> I think moving away from commonly used xend/xm could be a bit of a thorn >> particularly if the Oxm' to Oxl' migration isn't >> expected to work. >> >> Thoughts ? >> > > 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. > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel --_000_C834222D17B96pradeepvamazoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [Xen-devel] New feature support - xl or xm ?
Also, was there a compelling reason to move away from the ‘xm’ = interface. Obviously ‘xm’ is both an API and an implementation = and I certainly see the reasons to move away from libxenguest/xend/xm imple= mentation in favor of libxl. But was there a reason to opt for a new ‘= ;xl’ API as opposed change the implementation behind the established = ‘xm’ API.

Did the ‘xm’ interface (excluding the implementation) fall shor= t of serving the needs ?

Thanks,

- Pradeep Vincent

On 6/8/10 3:49 PM, "Vincent, Pradeep" <pradeepv@amazon.com>= wrote:



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<= BR> > hosts


I am not sure what you meant here – Are you suggesting retrofit of Ox= l’ to
hosts using older hypervisor.

Can migration functionality (including live migration) in Oxl’ be des= igned
for backward compatibility with Oxm’. I am sure this will go a long w= ay in
helping existing users convert over to Oxl’.

- Pradeep Vincent



On 6/8/10 2:17 AM, "Stefano Stabellini" <stefano.stabellini@eu= .citrix.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Vincent, Pradeep wrote:
>> I haven’t looked deeply into Oxl’ but..
>>
>>> From the recent Xen summit, I walked away thinking Oxl’ = didn’t have the
>>> callback mechanisms (e.g. Cleanup etc) and this
>> helped it stay stateless while falling short of full Oxm’ re= placement. This
>> email thread indicates Oxm/xend’ will be
>> deprecated in due course of time. Did I miss anything here ?
>>
>
> We intend to port xend to libxl at some point to smooth the migration<= BR> > 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<= BR> > 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<= BR> > (no callbacks or cleanups in that case).
>
>
>> Is migration of VMs from Oxm’ managed hosts to Oxl’ ma= naged hosts expected to
>> work ?
>>
>> I think moving away from commonly used xend/xm could be a bit of a= thorn
>> particularly if the Oxm’ to Oxl’ migration isn’t=
>> expected to work.
>>
>> Thoughts ?
>>
>
> 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<= BR> > 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<= BR> > 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.=
>


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com= /xen-devel

--_000_C834222D17B96pradeepvamazoncom_-- --===============0814013028== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel --===============0814013028==--