[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: LAST_CHECKPOINT and save/restore/migrate compatibility (was Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3 of 4] libxc: provide notification of final checkpoint to restore end)
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
N->N+1 should work, for Remus even now, without the LAST_CHECKPOINT patch. But as you said, failback from N+1 -> N wont work. I agree with George's suggestion on MORE_CHECKPOINTS, for backwards compatibility wrt live migration. But for HA, it doest make much sense if a user is able to do HA only one way and cannot failback. This is not a upgrade scenario. So, that would require some exception to be thrown when a version incompatibility is detected. IMO, its better to let the user handle this limitation than letting him/her do the N->N+1 HA and then finding out that they cannot failback. shriram Bear in mind that if you did support N->N+1 checkpoints you wouldn't be _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |