Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 5] xl shutdown compatibility with xm

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 16:23 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sander Eikelenboom writes ("Re: [PATCH 0 of 5] xl shutdown compatibility with 
> xm"):
> > 
> > So Ian, what would your prefer ?
> > 
> > A) only fix the xendomains init script, since it's automated and a 
> > administator can not intervene, for manual usage of xl shutdown keep the 
> > current behaviour
> > B) Drop the -F option and let xl shutdown always try the acpi fallback. In 
> > this case you can very well turn around IanC's argumentation:
> >    An administrator who knows that a domain can't be shutdown with either 
> > the pv or acpi fallback just shouldn't try to use xl shutdown manually.
> >    (and if he does probably nothing devastating will happen)
> > C) Invert the -F option, to NOT try to use the apci fallback
> > 
> > I think option B is acceptable and preferable:
> 
> I agree with you.  But I think we need to convince Ian C.

My main concern is that triggering a hibernation or suspend is, AUIU, a
reasonably common out of the box configuration for some versions of
Windows, which combined with hibernation being (historically at least)
notoriously flakey on real hardware (and I would expect more so on a
virtualised platform) worries me. Also note that we don't actually
implement suspend to RAM -- the domain will quiesce itself and come to a
stop but AFAIK it won't actually die and the domain's RAM won't be saved
anywhere. Presumably this is roughly equivalent to your battery running
out while suspended and therefore not all that dangerous.

But anyway I seem to be in the minority. We can always revert it if it
starts eating peoples data.

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel