[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/6] [VERY RFC] Migration Stream v2
On Mon, 2014-04-14 at 19:11 +0100, David Vrabel wrote: > On 14/04/14 18:49, George Dunlap wrote: > > 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? > > This was something Ian Jackson asked for and it seems like a useful > capabilitity to have for future use. Not sure what it might be used for > yet. > > David Upper layers can stick stuff like machine descriptions (ie: "Web server for selling") or other more technical (original host name/ip, specific modifications of host like the "User agent" stuff in http, preferred migration encapsulation). The definition of optional is you can discard it and machine will work the same. Frediano _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |