On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 09:48:22AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 08:51:05AM +0800, liguang wrote:
> 在 2012-09-04二的 12:12 +0100,Daniel P. Berrange写道:
> > On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 02:23:24PM +0800, liguang wrote:
> > > allow migration even domain isn't active by
> > > inserting some stubs to tunnel migration path.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.fnst(a)cn.fujitsu.com>
> > > ---
> > > src/qemu/qemu_driver.c | 2 +-
> > > src/qemu/qemu_migration.c | 181
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > src/qemu/qemu_migration.h | 3 +-
> > > 3 files changed, 178 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > 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:
> >
> > 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
which lets the app choose exactly which disks images they wish
to copy, rather than assuming all of them should be copied.
Daniel,
One use case for the VolDownload/Upload APIs that I've been wondering
about for a while is a data center with good connectivity (say 10Gbps)
between hosts but relatively constrained bandwidth (say 100Mbps or
WAN) on the management network. What's the best approach to copying
large volumes between hosts in that case?
Dave