2:11 p.m.
On 07/18/2011 04:11 AM, Osier Yang wrote:
于 2011年07月18日 10:07, zhang xintao 写道:
> Dear All
> I try to migration a kvm guest os to another host failed
> server: ubuntu 11.04 server
> virsh:migrate --live --tunnelled vm1 qemu+ssh://192.168.10.3/system
> error:Requested operation is not valid:cannot perform
> tunnelled migration without using peer2peer flag
The error tells you all, you need to use "--p2p".
That said, why can't virsh be smarter, and automatically request the
right underlying flags without making the user also type --p2p? Any
problems with this patch?
From db318d41c2a70189c21303c824aa4a862815874a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Eric Blake <eblake(a)redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:10:29 -0600
Subject: [PATCH] virsh: make migrate --tunnelled imply --p2p
We can make the virsh migrate UI friendlier by supplying the
missing bit automatically instead of erroring out when requesting
--tunnelled without --p2p.
* tools/virsh.c (doMigrate): Make --p2p optional when using
--tunnelled.
* tools/virsh.pod (migrate): Tweak wording accordingly.
---
tools/virsh.c | 2 +-
tools/virsh.pod | 5 +++--
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/virsh.c b/tools/virsh.c
index 6c8032f..05aeb6c 100644
--- a/tools/virsh.c
+++ b/tools/virsh.c
@@ -4475,7 +4475,7 @@ doMigrate (void *opaque)
if (vshCommandOptBool (cmd, "p2p"))
flags |= VIR_MIGRATE_PEER2PEER;
if (vshCommandOptBool (cmd, "tunnelled"))
- flags |= VIR_MIGRATE_TUNNELLED;
+ flags |= VIR_MIGRATE_TUNNELLED | VIR_MIGRATE_PEER2PEER;
if (vshCommandOptBool (cmd, "persistent"))
flags |= VIR_MIGRATE_PERSIST_DEST;
diff --git a/tools/virsh.pod b/tools/virsh.pod
index e156232..e0adc31 100644
--- a/tools/virsh.pod
+++ b/tools/virsh.pod
@@ -534,14 +534,15 @@ Provide the maximum number of virtual CPUs
supported for a guest VM on
this connection. If provided, the I<type> parameter must be a valid
type attribute for the <domain> element of XML.
-=item B<migrate> [I<--live>] [I<--direct>] [I<--p2p>
[I<--tunnelled>]]
+=item B<migrate> [I<--live>] [I<--direct>] [I<--p2p>]
[I<--tunnelled>]
[I<--persistent>] [I<--undefinesource>] [I<--suspend>]
[I<--copy-storage-all>]
[I<--copy-storage-inc>] [I<--verbose>] I<domain-id> I<desturi>
[I<migrateuri>]
[I<dname>] [I<--timeout> B<seconds>]
Migrate domain to another host. Add I<--live> for live migration;
I<--p2p>
for peer-2-peer migration; I<--direct> for direct migration; or
I<--tunnelled>
-for tunnelled migration. I<--persistent> leaves the domain persistent on
+for tunnelled migration (I<--tunnelled> implies I<--p2p>).
I<--persistent>
+leaves the domain persistent on
destination host, I<--undefinesource> undefines the domain on the
source host,
and I<--suspend> leaves the domain paused on the destination host.
I<--copy-storage-all> indicates migration with non-shared storage with
full
--
1.7.4.4
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
4:17 p.m.
New subject: [libvirt] [libvirt-users] cannot perform tunnelled migration without using peer2peer flag
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 13:11:42 -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 07/18/2011 04:11 AM, Osier Yang wrote:
> 于 2011年07月18日 10:07, zhang xintao 写道:
>> Dear All
>> I try to migration a kvm guest os to another host failed
>> server: ubuntu 11.04 server
>> virsh:migrate --live --tunnelled vm1 qemu+ssh://192.168.10.3/system
>> error:Requested operation is not valid:cannot perform
>> tunnelled migration without using peer2peer flag
>
> The error tells you all, you need to use "--p2p".
That said, why can't virsh be smarter, and automatically request the
right underlying flags without making the user also type --p2p? Any
problems with this patch?
No problem at all, I think it's a very good idea.
From db318d41c2a70189c21303c824aa4a862815874a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
2001
From: Eric Blake <eblake(a)redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:10:29 -0600
Subject: [PATCH] virsh: make migrate --tunnelled imply --p2p
We can make the virsh migrate UI friendlier by supplying the
missing bit automatically instead of erroring out when requesting
--tunnelled without --p2p.
* tools/virsh.c (doMigrate): Make --p2p optional when using
--tunnelled.
* tools/virsh.pod (migrate): Tweak wording accordingly.
---
tools/virsh.c | 2 +-
tools/virsh.pod | 5 +++--
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
So, here is my ACK
Jirka
4:26 p.m.
New subject: [libvirt] [libvirt-users] cannot perform tunnelled migration without using peer2peer flag
On 07/18/2011 03:17 PM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> That said, why can't virsh be smarter, and automatically
request the
> right underlying flags without making the user also type --p2p? Any
> problems with this patch?
No problem at all, I think it's a very good idea.
> From db318d41c2a70189c21303c824aa4a862815874a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Eric Blake<eblake(a)redhat.com>
> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:10:29 -0600
> Subject: [PATCH] virsh: make migrate --tunnelled imply --p2p
>
> We can make the virsh migrate UI friendlier by supplying the
> missing bit automatically instead of erroring out when requesting
> --tunnelled without --p2p.
>
> * tools/virsh.c (doMigrate): Make --p2p optional when using
> --tunnelled.
> * tools/virsh.pod (migrate): Tweak wording accordingly.
> ---
> tools/virsh.c | 2 +-
> tools/virsh.pod | 5 +++--
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
So, here is my ACK
Pushed.
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
4:23 a.m.
New subject: [libvirt] [libvirt-users] cannot perform tunnelled migration without using peer2peer flag
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 01:11:42PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 07/18/2011 04:11 AM, Osier Yang wrote:
>于 2011年07月18日 10:07, zhang xintao 写道:
>>Dear All
>>I try to migration a kvm guest os to another host failed
>>server: ubuntu 11.04 server
>>virsh:migrate --live --tunnelled vm1 qemu+ssh://192.168.10.3/system
>>error:Requested operation is not valid:cannot perform
>>tunnelled migration without using peer2peer flag
>
>The error tells you all, you need to use "--p2p".
That said, why can't virsh be smarter, and automatically request the
right underlying flags without making the user also type --p2p? Any
problems with this patch?
It was done to leave open the possibility of supporting a
TUNNELLED mode, which was independant of P2P mode in the
future. It isn't entirely likely, but I didn't want to lock
ourselves out of it with this kind of patch
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
7:19 a.m.
New subject: [libvirt] [libvirt-users] cannot perform tunnelled migration without using peer2peer flag
On 07/19/2011 03:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 01:11:42PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 07/18/2011 04:11 AM, Osier Yang wrote:
>> 于 2011年07月18日 10:07, zhang xintao 写道:
>>> Dear All
>>> I try to migration a kvm guest os to another host failed
>>> server: ubuntu 11.04 server
>>> virsh:migrate --live --tunnelled vm1 qemu+ssh://192.168.10.3/system
>>> error:Requested operation is not valid:cannot perform
>>> tunnelled migration without using peer2peer flag
>>
>> The error tells you all, you need to use "--p2p".
>
> That said, why can't virsh be smarter, and automatically request the
> right underlying flags without making the user also type --p2p? Any
> problems with this patch?
It was done to leave open the possibility of supporting a
TUNNELLED mode, which was independant of P2P mode in the
future. It isn't entirely likely, but I didn't want to lock
ourselves out of it with this kind of patch
But if we ever reach that point, could we then revert this patch at that
time, to where the user once again has to tell virsh both --p2p and
--tunnelled? Or would such a change be considered a regression in
behavior at that time for existing scripts that were foolishly relying
on the UI shortcut, and hence virsh should never learn the UI shortcut
in the first place? If the latter, then we should revert the patch that
just went in so that 0.9.4 doesn't lock us into causing a future regression.
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
7:23 a.m.
New subject: [libvirt] [libvirt-users] cannot perform tunnelled migration without using peer2peer flag
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 06:19:13AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 07/19/2011 03:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 01:11:42PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>>On 07/18/2011 04:11 AM, Osier Yang wrote:
>>>于 2011年07月18日 10:07, zhang xintao 写道:
>>>>Dear All
>>>>I try to migration a kvm guest os to another host failed
>>>>server: ubuntu 11.04 server
>>>>virsh:migrate --live --tunnelled vm1 qemu+ssh://192.168.10.3/system
>>>>error:Requested operation is not valid:cannot perform
>>>>tunnelled migration without using peer2peer flag
>>>
>>>The error tells you all, you need to use "--p2p".
>>
>>That said, why can't virsh be smarter, and automatically request the
>>right underlying flags without making the user also type --p2p? Any
>>problems with this patch?
>
>It was done to leave open the possibility of supporting a
>TUNNELLED mode, which was independant of P2P mode in the
>future. It isn't entirely likely, but I didn't want to lock
>ourselves out of it with this kind of patch
But if we ever reach that point, could we then revert this patch at
that time, to where the user once again has to tell virsh both --p2p
and --tunnelled? Or would such a change be considered a regression
in behavior at that time for existing scripts that were foolishly
relying on the UI shortcut, and hence virsh should never learn the
UI shortcut in the first place? If the latter, then we should
revert the patch that just went in so that 0.9.4 doesn't lock us
into causing a future regression.
It would be a regression, but also it would mean old virsh releases
would not be able to operate against new libvirtd releases.
Basically, virsh shouldn't make any assumptions based on the current
way things are implemented in libvirtd, since it cannot expect to be
running against a matching version. Old virsh should work against new
libvirtd, and vica-verca. This is the same case as the checking of
flags in src/libvirt.c vs the individual drivers.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
8:20 a.m.
New subject: [libvirt] [libvirt-users] cannot perform tunnelled migration without using peer2peer flag
On 07/19/2011 06:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Basically, virsh shouldn't make any assumptions based on the
current
way things are implemented in libvirtd, since it cannot expect to be
running against a matching version. Old virsh should work against new
libvirtd, and vica-verca. This is the same case as the checking of
flags in src/libvirt.c vs the individual drivers.
Fair enough, commit 40143fb6 is now reverted.
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
4875
days inactive
4876
days old
6 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Daniel P. Berrange -
Eric Blake -
Jiri Denemark