Il 26/11/2013 12:07, Lei Li ha scritto: >> Basically, "-incoming" without "-S" is a broken option because of the >> missing handshake at the end of migration. With "-S" something else >> (either a human or a program) can check that everything went well and >> choose whether to restart the source or the destination. > > I see, thanks for your explanation. :-) > > BTW, do you think we should add such handling to the current migration > protocol?
I think it's not included by design. > The whole procedure for page flipping migration is straight forward, and > the cases of failure I listed are in theory, which never happened at least > since many times I have tested (except the case you raised above). But I > agree with you on coupling with postcopy migration to make it more > reliable, specially for the undetected problems. The only problem that worries me is failing to load device data (most likely due to misconfiguration or a bug). > For this, I am not quite sure I understand it correctly, seems the latest > update of post copy migration was sent on last Oct, would you please give > some insights on what else could I do for the coupling with postcopy > migration? I don't know the state exactly. Orit and Andrea should know. > If no, now page flipping is implemented as a migration capability, and it's > a good shape already as your comments in the previous version. Although it > still needs a little more time to get the numbers of the new vmsplice, > I'd to ask your opinion that do you consider it could be merged as an > experimental version for now? Yes, that could be useful. I will review the patch as soon as possible. Paolo
