Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > On 06/16/2010 05:05 PM, Juan Quintela wrote: >> Anthony Liguori<anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: >> >>> On 06/16/2010 11:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> This is related to the commands, not QMP per se: >>>>> >>>>> Once that we are talking about "cont" command. There are two cases that >>>>> we need to think of: >>>>> >>>>> - incoming migration: >>>>> >>>>> If you start with -incoming foo, and then run "cont" on the monitor >>>>> without having started the migration .... corruption is ensured. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> This is why '-incoming' command line arg should die, and be replaced >>>> with a 'incoming' monitor command that would simply not allow 'cont' >>>> to be run until it completed. >>>> >>>> For that matter, even with '-incoming' arg on command line we could >>>> refuse to honour 'cont' until the incoming migration had been done. >>>> >>>> >>> If we had an incoming migration command, I think we'd have to think >>> careful about it's semantics. Is it reasonable to allow a machine >>> that's otherwise running to do an incoming command? >>> >> It is the same problem that loadvm. >> >> And no, loadvm several times don't work well either. >> > > It's supposed to. If it doesn't, then there's a bug somewhere.
I haven't tried lately, but when I tried (months ago, 0.12.0 timeframe), it didn't work correctly the 2nd/3rd time. I ended to always loading from a fresh image, much easier to get it right. Later, Juan.
