[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/6] [VERY RFC] Migration Stream v2
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/04/14 11:42, Ian Campbell wrote: >> On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 19:28 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> Some design decisions have been take very deliberately (e.g. splitting the >>> logic for PV and hvm migration) while others have been more along the lines >>> of >>> "I think its a sensible thing to do given a lack of any evidence/opinion to >>> the contrary". >> Is there some indication of which is which? > > Not really, given the clean rewrite, and also that it is only partially > complete. > >> >> Should we check in the desigh/spec which was previously posted as part >> of this? > > I knew I forgot something... > > http://xenbits.xen.org/people/andrewcoop/domain-save-format-E.pdf What did you imagine might constitute an "Optional" record? Other than that, everything looks sensible so far -- but having only save/restore of one guest type is the easy bit. It's when you start to have to multiplex across {PV, HVM, PVH} x {disk, network, remus} that things are going to get more "interesting". -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |