From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46294) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QrBpu-00045X-BX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:40:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QrBps-0001ol-JN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:40:54 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:29553) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QrBps-0001oG-8D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:40:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4E42B48D.9020609@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:40:45 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4E3FF6AE.8030004@redhat.com> <4E3FF705.9080009@redhat.com> <4E3FFC7A.3090000@codemonkey.ws> <4E3FFD76.4010804@redhat.com> <4E400C78.1020104@codemonkey.ws> <4E40147E.2080403@redhat.com> <4E401504.7080309@codemonkey.ws> <4E429FE6.4060408@redhat.com> <4E42AABB.3020306@codemonkey.ws> <4E42ACF9.3040101@redhat.com> <4E42B07C.2090805@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4E42B07C.2090805@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4] XBZRLE delta for live migration of large memory apps List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Blue Swirl , Stefan Hajnoczi , "Shribman, Aidan" , qemu-devel Developers On 08/10/2011 07:23 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Right now we have capabilties in the form of -help output. >> >> If -help says >> >> -no-xzbrle disable xzbrle support >> >> (or -migration-compression xzbrle=off, or something) that's sufficient >> for management tools. > > > This is static, not dynamic. You may attempt to migrate to another > host that supports it and then migrate to a second host that doesn't > support it after the first migration fails. This may be acceptable, wait until the entire migration cluster is xzbrle capable before enabling it. If not, add a monitor command. > >> >> We shouldn't block this feature just because some monitor facility is >> not yet implemented. > > We shouldn't make *any* changes to the migration protocol before we > have a feature negotiation capability. I only want to do a hard break > of the protocol once. Didn't we agree that management tool mediated feature negotiation (that is, outside the migration protocol itself) is acceptable? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function