On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:02:36 +0100
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote:
> * David Gibson (dgib...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 19:57:47 +0100
> > "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote:
> >
> > > * Balamuruhan S (bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
>
On 2018-04-10 15:22, Balamuruhan S wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:04:59AM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
Balamuruhan S wrote:
> expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate * page_size,
> using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it correct.
>
>
* David Gibson (dgib...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 19:57:47 +0100
> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote:
>
> > * Balamuruhan S (bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > On 2018-04-04 13:36, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:55:14AM +0530,
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:04:59AM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Balamuruhan S wrote:
> > expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate * page_size,
> > using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it correct.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 19:57:47 +0100
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote:
> * Balamuruhan S (bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > On 2018-04-04 13:36, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:55:14AM +0530, Balamuruhan S wrote:
[snip]
> > > > > - postcopy: that'll let you
* Balamuruhan S (bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> On 2018-04-04 13:36, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:55:14AM +0530, Balamuruhan S wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > too. So still I'll put aside the "which one is better" question.
> > > >
> > > > For your use case, you can have
Balamuruhan S wrote:
> expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate * page_size,
> using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it correct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S
Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela
See my
Peter Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:25:36AM +0530, Balamuruhan S wrote:
>> expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate * page_size,
>> using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it correct.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S
>>
On 2018-04-04 13:36, Peter Xu wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:55:14AM +0530, Balamuruhan S wrote:
[...]
> too. So still I'll put aside the "which one is better" question.
>
> For your use case, you can have a look on either of below way to
> have a converged migration:
>
> - auto-converge:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:55:14AM +0530, Balamuruhan S wrote:
[...]
> > too. So still I'll put aside the "which one is better" question.
> >
> > For your use case, you can have a look on either of below way to
> > have a converged migration:
> >
> > - auto-converge: that's a migration
On 2018-04-04 07:29, Peter Xu wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 11:00:00PM +0530, bala24 wrote:
On 2018-04-03 11:40, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:25:36AM +0530, Balamuruhan S wrote:
> > expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate *
> > page_size,
> > using
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 11:00:00PM +0530, bala24 wrote:
> On 2018-04-03 11:40, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:25:36AM +0530, Balamuruhan S wrote:
> > > expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate *
> > > page_size,
> > > using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it
On 2018-04-03 11:40, Peter Xu wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:25:36AM +0530, Balamuruhan S wrote:
expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate *
page_size,
using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it correct.
Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S
---
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:25:36AM +0530, Balamuruhan S wrote:
> expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate * page_size,
> using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it correct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S
> ---
> migration/migration.c | 3 +--
> 1
expected_downtime value is not accurate with dirty_pages_rate * page_size,
using ram_bytes_remaining would yeild it correct.
Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S
---
migration/migration.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git
15 matches
Mail list logo