On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 12:33:31 +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 07.07.2020 um 08:38 hat Peter Krempa geschrieben: > > On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 18:15:55 +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > Am 03.07.2020 um 18:02 hat Daniel P. Berrangé geschrieben:
[...] > > IMO we really want this also for external snapshots. Driving the > > migration as standard migration is really suboptimal especially when the > > user wants minimal downtime. Transactioning a post-copy style copy-on > > write migration would simplify this a lot. I agree though that this is > > for a different conversation. > > This is an interesting point actually. And while the implementation of > the post-copy style live snapshotting is for a different conversation, I > think the implications it has on the API are relevant for us now. > > But even if we have an all-in-one snapshot job instead of a transaction > to group all the individual operations together, I think you could still > represent that by just specifying an empty list of nodes to be > snapshotted. (I feel this is another argument for passing the nodes to > include rather than nodes to exclude from the disk snapshot.) Definitely. From libvirt's POV it's IMO simpler and more future-proof to enumerate everything rather than keep a database of what to skip.
