Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] about libxl snapshot

["Bamvor Jian Zhang" <BJZhang@xxxxxxxx>]

hi, ian

"Ian Jackson" <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writen
>
> Bamvor Jian Zhang writes ("[RFC] about libxl snapshot"):
> > our plan about snapshot is:
> > 1, basic disk snapshot support(internal snapshot, qdisk as backend).
> > ALREADY SENT.
>
> Right, see my comments on that.  I'm not sure what feature it
> provides, apart from something that could be done with qemku-img.
yes. thanks for your review. basically this patch want to provide some api for 
vm snapshot.
is it ok if i send current patch plus vm snapshot patch together, and leave 
some advanced feature alone?
i mean support create, delete, list and revert for vm snapshot(only support 
internal disk snapshot).
> > 2, vm snapshot(memory save, snapshot the whole snapshot with transaction qmp
> > opeartion, only support internal disk snapshot at this step.
> > in this step, we plan to add the vm snapshot record in xenstore in domain in
> > order to management the status of vm snapshot.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "add the vm snapshot record in
> xenstore".  I don't know what "vm snapshot record" is exactly.  If you
> mean the domain save state it's far too big for xenstore.
sorry for confuse. i mean store the vm snapshot information, such as name of 
snapshot, creation time.

regards

bamvor
>
> > question:
> > in GSOC2013, there is a requirement: "Add VM snapshot functionalities to 
> > libxl
> > save/restore and migration functions". is it mean add a flag to create 
> > snapshot
> > in save, revert snapshot in restore besides the dedicated vm snapshot 
> > command?
> > or just implement the snapshot in save, restore and migration?
> > it might be more clear for user if there is a dedicated snapshot command.
>
> I agree that a dedicated command might be clearer.  This is a matter
> for the implementor to think about and decide in consultation with the
> community.  I don't think the 2013 GSOC requirement was intended to
> specify an xl UI.
>
> > 3, some "advanced" feature such driver-mirror, support other backend.
> >
> > when i prepare to send this out, i found that there is a GSOC project during
> > community review this week. i am sorry about i do not send this discussion
> > eariler. sorry if i break the plan of xen community.
>
> We welcome contributions from anyone, whether within GSOC or without.
> Sadly sometimes that means things come in parallel, which can involve
> duplicated work.  We'll know fairly soon which GSOC projects have been
> accepted.
>
> Ian.



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