(2012/09/06 14:32), liguang wrote:
Hello, Eric & Daniel
在 2012-09-05三的 11:08 -0600,Eric Blake写道:
> On 09/05/2012 02:48 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I really don't like the general design of this patch, even
>>>> ignoring all the code bugs. I think this entire patch is
>>>> really just a solution in search of a problem. Offline migration
>>>> is already possible with existing libvirt APIs:
>
> I agree that the existing patches are making too many assumptions and
> not honoring flags correctly; but I'm still not sure why the user must
> decompose offline migration into a sequence of calls...
yes, my original thought was to do all things together.
>
>>>>
>>>> domsrc = virDomainLookupByName(connsrc, "someguest");
>>>> xml = virDomainGetXMLDesc(domsrc);
>>>> domdst virDomainDefine(conndst, xml);
>>>>
>>>
>>> Um, maybe you mean offline migration is just redefinition of domain at
>>> target side, but what about disk images the domain used without sharing
>>> files between source and target, do we have to take a look at this case?
>>
>> Which can also be done already
>>
>> virStorageVolDownload + virStorageVolUpload
>
> ...when a single virMigrate API could do the same decomposition as
> syntactic sugar, if the patch were cleaned up to actually obey flags.
> That is, why must virMigrate be a live-only operation, forcing
> virt-manager and all other wrappers to re-implement the same giant
> sequence of API calls for offline migration?
>
so, libvirt may prefer APIs do one thing only?
maybe I have to just migrate the definition.
Can you try to move the definition in an atomic way ?
copy to the dest + delete the original with preventing other ops to the
target vm. I hope virsh migrate can support this "move" of definition....
Thanks,
-Kame