Re: [Xen-devel] New feature support - xl or xm ?

["Vincent, Pradeep" <pradeepv@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Also, was there a compelling reason to move away from the ‘xm’ interface. Obviously ‘xm’ is both an API and an implementation and I certainly see the reasons to move away from libxenguest/xend/xm implementation in favor of libxl. But was there a reason to opt for a new ‘xl’ API as opposed change the implementation behind the established ‘xm’ API.

Did the ‘xm’ interface (excluding the implementation) fall short of serving the needs ?

Thanks,

- Pradeep Vincent

On 6/8/10 3:49 PM, "Vincent, Pradeep" <pradeepv@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks Stefano.
>
> >>I think that migrating VMs from 'xm hosts' to 'xl hosts' would
> > work even at the moment, if you use xl on both source and destination
> > hosts
>
>
> I am not sure what you meant here – Are you suggesting retrofit of Oxl’ to
> hosts using older hypervisor.
>
> Can migration functionality (including live migration) in Oxl’ be designed
> for backward compatibility with Oxm’. I am sure this will go a long way in
> helping existing users convert over to Oxl’.
>
> - Pradeep Vincent
>
>
>
> On 6/8/10 2:17 AM, "Stefano Stabellini" <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Vincent, Pradeep wrote:
> >> I haven’t looked deeply into Oxl’ but..
> >>
> >>> From the recent Xen summit, I walked away thinking Oxl’ didn’t have the
> >>> callback mechanisms (e.g. Cleanup etc) and this
> >> helped it stay stateless while falling short of full Oxm’ replacement. This
> >> email thread indicates Oxm/xend’ will be
> >> deprecated in due course of time. Did I miss anything here ?
> >>
> >
> > We intend to port xend to libxl at some point to smooth the migration
> > path, however xl is going to be where most of the development and
> > testing is going on, so it is worth considering a switch to xl in any
> > case.
> > xl does have the callback mechanisms for cleanup, they are implemented
> > in a per-VM daemon that is started when you create the domain.
> > However you can still create a VM without starting the related daemon
> > (no callbacks or cleanups in that case).
> >
> >
> >> Is migration of VMs from Oxm’ managed hosts to Oxl’ managed hosts expected to
> >> work ?
> >>
> >> I think moving away from commonly used xend/xm could be a bit of a thorn
> >> particularly if the Oxm’ to Oxl’ migration isn’t
> >> expected to work.
> >>
> >> Thoughts ?
> >>
> >
> > There are only two things that xl doesn't have compared to xend: the
> > concept of managed domains (domains that are installed on your system
> > and may be offline) and an XML-RPC interface.
> > If you don't need these two things than switching shouldn't be
> > difficult.
> > I think that migrating VMs from 'xm hosts' to 'xl hosts' would
> > work even at the moment, if you use xl on both source and destination
> > hosts and specify the configuration file you used to create the domain
> > at the source. In any case it could be made to work without too many
> > efforts, given that your are not speaking about fully managed domains.
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel