On 7/13/20 3:42 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
On 7/13/20 10:20 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 7/13/20 11:49 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
>> This document describes briefly how Libvirt migration internals
>> works, complementing the info available in migration.html.in.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb413(a)gmail.com>
>> ---
>> docs/kbase/migrationinternals.rst | 174 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 174 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 docs/kbase/migrationinternals.rst
>>
>> diff --git a/docs/kbase/migrationinternals.rst
>> b/docs/kbase/migrationinternals.rst
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000..869ee99bd7
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/docs/kbase/migrationinternals.rst
>> @@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
>> +===========================
>> +Libvirt migration internals
>> +===========================
>> +
>> +.. contents::
>> +
>> +Migration is a multi-step operation with at least two distinct actors,
>> +the source and the destination libvirtd daemons, and a lot of failure
>> +points. This document describes the basic migration workflow in the
>> +code level, as a way to complement `the base migration docs
>> <migration.html>`_
>> +and help developers to get up to speed quicker with the code.
>> +
>> +In this document, unless stated otherwise, these conventions are
>> followed:
>> +
>> +* 'user' refers to any entity that initiates a migration, regardless
>> of being
>> + an human using 'virsh' or a program consuming the Libvirt API;
>> +
>> +* 'source' refers to the source host of the migration, where the
>> guest currently
>> + exists;
>> +
>> +* 'destination' refers to the destination host of the migration. As of
>> + Libvirt 6.5.0 local migration isn't supported, thus source and
>> destination
>> + refers to different hosts;
>
> Is this right? What commit is reponsible for this change?
I guess my wording here is unclear. What I wanted to say is that, at
least up to the
current release we're at now (6.5.0), localhost migration (i.e. source
and destination
is the same host) isn't supported. I wanted to mention it this way
because there's always
the chance that Libvirt comes around and implements it.
If you want a commit id, the error message warning about localhost
migration appeared
first here:
commit 8654175c5b0c3db9e5f70907f102f0f900355d28
Author: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange(a)redhat.com>
Date: Mon Jan 24 18:06:16 2011 +0000
Yeah, I was more interested whether we merged recently a patch that
explicitly forbids same host migration. Speaking of which, to some
extent we support same host migration (see v6.2.0-rc1~282) if both
libvirts live in separate containers (and effectively think they run on
different hosts).
Can you post a diff that I can squash in before merging?
Michal