On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 12:22:18PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 06:09:16PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> From managements point of view, bundling all this together is really not
> a good idea since it creates a very big matrix of failure scenarios.
I think this is clear. This is why we are doing it in QEMU where we can
actually do all the rollbacks transparently.
> In
> general even libvirt will prefer that upper layer management drives this
> externally, since any rolback scenario will result in a policy decision
> of what to do in certain cases, and what timeouts to pick.
Architectural ugliness of implementing what is from users perspective a
mechanism and not a policy aside, experience teaches that this isn't
going to happen. People have been talking about the idea of doing
this at the upper layers for years.
The ability to unplugg+replug VFIO devices either side of migration
has existed in OpenStack for a long time. They also have metadata
that can be exposed to the guest to allow it to describe which pairs
of (emulated,vfio) devices should be used together.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|