[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration
From: |
Jamie Lokier |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:07:08 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
Paul Brook wrote:
> I never said you need the same host. All the save/restore code
> should be host independent. It should be possible to save state on
> (say) i386 and restore on ppc64. Anything that prevents this is IMO
> a bug.
>
> For KVM you're likely to need a cpu with at least as many features
> as the old one, but that's the price you pay for using host hardware
> features.
I'd prefer the "host hardware features" to be an acceleration
mechanism, than something which makes a VM dependent on the specific
host it's running on.
Can't KVM invoke QEMU's emulation capabilities for those things it
cannot provide itself because of missing host abilities?
-- Jamie
- [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Andre Przywara, 2009/02/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Anthony Liguori, 2009/02/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Paul Brook, 2009/02/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Jamie Lokier, 2009/02/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Paul Brook, 2009/02/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Jamie Lokier, 2009/02/22
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Paul Brook, 2009/02/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration,
Jamie Lokier <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Paul Brook, 2009/02/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Anthony Liguori, 2009/02/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Avi Kivity, 2009/02/24
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] More robust migration, Jamie Lokier, 2009/02/20
[Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC] More robust migration, Charles Duffy, 2009/02/20