Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions.

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Thu, 01 March 2012 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sami@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393C021E8229 for <sami@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:24:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nGrBEcefesSP for <sami@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:24:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA0D21E822D for <sami@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:24:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pbcwz17 with SMTP id wz17so1098707pbc.31 for <sami@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:24:45 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of melinda.shore@gmail.com designates 10.68.219.232 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.68.219.232;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of melinda.shore@gmail.com designates 10.68.219.232 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=melinda.shore@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=melinda.shore@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.68.219.232]) by 10.68.219.232 with SMTP id pr8mr4501049pbc.12.1330619085402 (num_hops = 1); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:24:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EXQc1FAG3WJvJsTBKl8V4Xsp/+9B1IsRAIW04ktKTf8=; b=W0cuekhRK3QABic63ctErJ/INXpen8YpF7wN3SaoCT5K/OmcODEhCySlhsqVfbdePa VXu//PtgXOAJXY2akvq0NQbL3JcAaGR1CDEqL3hFmqu2pAipmWV/1o2TPUVJFNLQU0uE ZT23SkdjLpp6io77/72+jlGX3QGYA+XtSjHBU=
Received: by 10.68.219.232 with SMTP id pr8mr3788997pbc.12.1330619085340; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:24:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from polypro.local (66-230-83-192-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.83.192]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f8sm2442744pbe.42.2012.03.01.08.24.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:24:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F4FA2CA.9060205@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:24:42 -0900
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.27) Gecko/20120216 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.19
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
References: <A27496C192613C44A82D819E1B98DB5721DAE9A6@SZXEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com> <201203011329.q21DTbkD023885@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4F9DA3.5030901@gmail.com> <201203011613.q21GDAob025552@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <201203011613.q21GDAob025552@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" <guyingjie@huawei.com>, "sami@ietf.org" <sami@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions.
X-BeenThere: sami@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: State Migration <sami.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sami>, <mailto:sami-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sami>
List-Post: <mailto:sami@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sami-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sami>, <mailto:sami-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:24:53 -0000

On 3/1/12 7:13 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> That does mean that an active VM in one place is migrated "live" (with
> a short downtime of sub seconds) to another place.
> This is not a case where the VM shuts down and new one is instantiated
> (i.e., started from scratch) elsewhere.
> Isn't this what VM migration means?

I think so, and there's no doubt it would be helpful to be clearer about
that going forward.  However, my understanding that while the VM image
would be moved (craploads of kernel state - file tables, page tables,
all that crap), network activity would have to be quiesced first.  It
sounds to me like it's got much in common with old school supercomputer
checkpoint/restart.  For whatever it's worth we have to do something
similar with some mid-range "application availability" (you'll notice
the absence of the word "high") gizmos, and something along the lines of
a middlebox state migration tool would seem to have some applicability
there, too.

Melinda