[Libvir] Next features and target for development

[Daniel Veillard]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:01:32PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:49:34AM -0700, Dan Smith wrote:
> > RJ> Some issues around migration which are up for discussion:
> > 
> > Something else to consider is whether or not we "undefine" hosts
> > leaving one machine during a migration.  Last time I checked, Xen left
> > a domain in "powered-off" state on the source.  It seems to make more
> > sense to me for a migration to remove the shell domain from the source
> > machine.
> > 
> > What will be the expected behavior here?
> 
> That's a good question really. There's definitely an argument to be made
> that the guest shoud be undefined on the source to prevent its accidental
> restart. 

  yup, I agree

> If we wanted to make undefining after migrate compulsory, then doing it
> as part of the virDomainMigrate call would make sense. If it was an optional
> thing though, one could make use of a flag to virDomainMigrate, or simply
> call virDomainUndefine explicitly.

  I would make it the default to try to provide a default behaviour we can
garantee on most hypervisors, and possibly provide an extra flag to try 
to not undefine if the user has a good reason (and it's supported by
the underlying hypervisor)

Daniel

-- 
Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/
Daniel Veillard      | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/
veillard at redhat.com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine  http://rpmfind.net/