On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Il 14/05/2013 10:50, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: > > Or, to translate it into our existing terminology, drive-mirror > > implements a passive mirror, you're proposing an active one (which we > > do want to have). > > > > With an active mirror, we'll want to have another choice: The mirror can > > be synchronous (guest writes only complete after the mirrored write has > > completed) or asynchronous (completion is based only on the original > > image). It should be easy enough to support both once an active mirror > > exists. > > Right, I'm waiting for Stefan's block-backup to give me the "right" > hooks for the active mirror. > > The bulk phase will always be passive, but an active-asynchronous mirror > has some interesting properties and it makes sense to implement it. > Do you mean you'd model the 'active' mode after 'block-backup,' or actually call functions provided by 'block-backup'? If I knew more about what you had in mind, I wouldn't mind trying to add this 'active' mode to 'drive-mirror' and test it with my use case. I want to avoid duplicate work, so if you want to implement it yourself I can defer this. -- Wolf
