On 07/09/2012 09:35 AM, John Garbutt wrote: > Renuka and I are looking at proposing a blueprint to try and sort out some of > this confusion. > > I think this is the current situation: > - historically XenAPI had migrate, Libvirt had live migrate > - But by end of Folsom we should have both having both
Yes, but what is the difference between the two? > - Live migration was originally only nova-manage controlled > - Migrate is useful, but requires things like passwordless ssh > - We could re-implement migrate as snapshot and restart This seems entirely reasonable. > - Above is also true for Resize That is actually how it already happens, with the CONFIRM_RESIZE state acting as the quiescence point for the operation. > - But there may be billing implications for the above changes > - Live-migrate is more useful than migrate Why? :) > - But live-migrate not always possible (miss matched CPUs, etc) > - Ideally we would have single migrate/live-migrate API This would be my preference. The way it stands today is entirely confusing. > Possible first steps for Folsom: > - Extend the migrate API to support a "live" and "live-block" migration > options Please explain these differences. > - Maybe add "live with fallback to non-live" option Again, need to know what the difference is you envision here? > - Maybe above should be the default, add a "non-live" option > - Fully document the expanded migrate API for Folsom Oh, definitely. :) Best, -jay > Does this sound reasonable? > > Cheers, > John > -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack-qa-team Post to : openstack-qa-team@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack-qa-team More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
