[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] using sync_manager with libvirt



On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 03:07:29PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/11/2010 02:53 PM, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> > Unfortunately, this is not how migration works in qemu/kvm.  Using your
> > nomenclature above, it's more like the following:
> > 
> > A guest is running on S.  A migration is then initiated, at which point D
> > fires up a qemu process with a -incoming argument.  This is sort of
> > a container process that will receive all of the migration data.  Crucially
> > for sync-manager, though, qemu completely starts up and "attaches" to all of
> > the resources (including disks) *while* qemu at S is still running.  Then it
> > enters a sort of paused state (where the guest cannot run), and receives
> > all of the migration data.  Once all of the migration data has been received,
> > the guest on S is destroyed, and the guest on D is unpaused.  That's why Dan
> > mentioned that we need two hosts to access the disk at once.
> 
> On the other hand, does D do any writes to the disk prior to the point
> at which it is unpaused?  Would it work if D can be granted a read-only
> lease to access to the disk for the duration of the migration data, and
> then be converted over to read-write at the point when S is destroyed?

Even if sync_manager had read/write lease semantics, this use case wouldn't
translate onto it, because S is in write mode the entire time that D is in
read mode, and read locks are not compatible with write locks.

sync_manager shouldn't be viewed as something that's trying to add any new
protection to the migration case.  It's just trying to accurately represent,
on disk, where qemu is unpaused.

Dave


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]