On 08/02/2018 12:50 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Denis V. Lunev (d...@openvz.org) 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 :)
Though the problem is that right now we are just trying to invent something suitable :( 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 / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
