On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:01:32PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:49:34AM -0700, Dan Smith wrote:
RJ> Some issues around migration which are up for discussion:
Something else to consider is whether or not we "undefine" hosts leaving one machine during a migration. Last time I checked, Xen left a domain in "powered-off" state on the source. It seems to make more sense to me for a migration to remove the shell domain from the source machine.
What will be the expected behavior here?
That's a good question really. There's definitely an argument to be made that the guest shoud be undefined on the source to prevent its accidental restart.
yup, I agree
If we wanted to make undefining after migrate compulsory, then doing it as part of the virDomainMigrate call would make sense. If it was an optional thing though, one could make use of a flag to virDomainMigrate, or simply call virDomainUndefine explicitly.
I would make it the default to try to provide a default behaviour we can garantee on most hypervisors, and possibly provide an extra flag to try to not undefine if the user has a good reason (and it's supported by the underlying hypervisor) Daniel -- Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/ Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ veillard@redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/