On Jun 19, 2009, at 3:43 PM, [email protected] wrote: > my big problem with live migration (especially as a disaster > recovery 'solution') is that if the running machine dies it's too > late to do a live migration. If the application is important enough > to need failover and disaster recovery I need it to be able to > survive a system just disappearing, and so I need it to be able to > recover on the new machine without having the old machine available > to migrate from, and if I have that anyway, why not use that instead > of live migration?
I'm pretty sure vMotion works just fine even if the first host loses power suddenly. We've lab tested a wide variety of "very bad" scenarios, and each time it migrated the machine efficiently enough that ping tests to the VM itself didn't even drop packets. (Delayed, sure, but...) --joshua. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
