[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <039a01c95ee3$07e7f900$17b7eb00$@com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:26:52 -0500 (EST)
From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim@...hat.com>
To: "'Jeremy Fitzhardinge'" <jeremy@...p.org>,
"'Anthony Liguori'" <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Cc: "'David Miller'" <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest<->host communication.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kvm-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-owner@...r.kernel.org] On
> Behalf Of Jeremy Fitzhardinge
> The trouble is that it presumes that the host and guest (or whoever the
> endpoints are) are on the same physical machine and will remain that
> way. Given that live migration is a feature that people seem to like,
> then you'd end up needing to transport this protocol over a real network
> anyway - and at that point you may as well use proper TCP/IP. The
> alternative is to say either "if you use this feature you can't migrate,
> and you can only resume on the same host", or "you can use this feature,
> and we'll work out a global namespace and proxy it over TCP for you".
> Neither seems very satisfactory.
[IH] when migrating a guest to another host, migration takes care of
closing/opening of the VMChannel on the target host. The VMChannel is
local to the hypervisor, not accessible via network. Migration is not an
issue requiring the VMChannel to use TCP/IP.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists