Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v3 2/5] vz: add migration backbone code

On 27.08.2015 13:34, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: I've been looking at common migration code for rather long time and think that using direct managed scheme for vz migration could lead to problems. Let me share my concerns. 1. Migration protocol of version1 differs from version3 not only by number of stages. Version3 supports extended parameters like VIR_MIGRATE_PARAM_GRAPHICS_URI which have meaning for vz migration too. Thus in future we could move to implementing version3 as well. 2. Direct managed stages doesn't have a meaning do anything on source, then on destination and so on. They interconnected and this interconnection is given in migration algorithm. For version3 (virDomainMigrateVersion3Full) it is more noticeable. If finish3 phase fail then we cancel migration on confirm3 phase. See, we treat this phases specifically - on perform3 we think we move data, on finish we think we start domain on destination, on comfirm we think we stop domain on source. That is how qemu migration works and that is how we think of phases when we implement direct managed algorithm. So phases have some contracts. If we implement vz migration thru this scheme we could not keep these contracts as perform3 phase not only move data, but also kill source domain and start destination. The worst things the user could get are an erroneous warnings in logs and overall migration failure reports on actual migration success in case of side effect failures like rpc or OOM. The worser is that you should keep in mind that phases imlementation contracts are vague. So as as version1 scheme is quite simple and phase contracts are looser that for version3 we could go this way but i see potential problems (at least for developer). Thus suggest keep contracts of phases of all versions of direct managed migration clear and hide all differences by implementing p2p or direct scheme. The questing arises how these two differ. Documentation states that p2p is when libvirt daemon manages migrations and direct is when all managing is done by hypervisor. As vz migration needs some help from destination daemon it looks like a candidate for p2p. But as this help is as just little as help authenticate i suggest to think of it as of direct. From implementation point of view there is no difference, from user point of view the difference is only in flags. Another argument is that if we take qemu we see that p2p is just go thru same steps as direct managed, the most of difference is that managing move from client to daemon. That is p2p and direct managed are some kind of coupled. If there is p2p then direct managed should be possible too and this is not the case of vz migration.