[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/6] dirty-bitmaps: clean-up bitmap

From: Denis V. Lunev
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/6] dirty-bitmaps: clean-up bitmaps loading and migration logic
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 11:59:25 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1

On 08/03/2018 11:33 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Denis V. Lunev (address@hidden) wrote:
>> On 08/02/2018 12:50 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>>> * Denis V. Lunev (address@hidden) wrote:
>>>>> I don't quite understand the last two paragraphs.
>>>> we are thinking right now to eliminate delay on regular IO
>>>> for migration. There is some thoughts and internal work in
>>>> progress. That is why I am worrying.
>>> What downtime are you typicaly seeing and what are you aiming for?
>>> It would be good if you could explain what you're planning to
>>> fix there so we can get a feel for it nearer the start of it
>>> rather than at the end of the reviewing!
>>> Dave
>> The ultimate goal is to reliable reach 100 ms with ongoing IO and
>> you are perfectly correct about reviewing :)
> That would be neat.
>> Though the problem is that right now we are just trying to
>> invent something suitable :(
> OK, some brain-storm level ideas:
>   a) Throttle the write bandwidth at later stages of migration
>      (I think that's been suggested before)

>   b) Switch to some active-sync like behaviour where the writes
>      are sent over the network as they happen to the destination
>      (mreitz has some prototype code for that type of behaviour
>      for postcopy)
will not work. Even with the sync mirror (which we have submitted
2 years ago, but not accepted), usual downtime will be around 1 sec
due to requests in flight.

>   c) Write the writes into a buffer that gets migrated over the
>     migration stream to get committed on the destination side.
yes. this is an option but the buffer can be too big.

For the shared disk migration the options are the following:
- without metadata updates writes could be just passed to finish, there
  is no need to wait. But completions should be reported to destination
- metadata updates are not allowed, they should be transferred to the

For non-shared disk migration we do not need to wait local IO, we just need
to restart them on target. Alternatively these areas could be marked as
blocked for IO and re-sync again once writes are completed.

These are raw ideas, which should be improved and tweaked.


> As I say, brainstorm level ideas only!
> Dave
>> Den
>>>>> However, coming back to my question; it was really saying that
>>>>> normal guest IO during the end of the migration will cause
>>>>> a delay; I'm expecting that to be fairly unrelated to the size
>>>>> of the disk; more to do with workload; so I guess in your case
>>>>> the worry is the case of big large disks giving big large
>>>>> bitmaps.
>>>> exactly!
>>>> Den
>>> --
>>> Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK
> --
> Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]