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

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Thu, 01 March 2012 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.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 4C3FF21E8233 for <sami@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:33:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.492
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Uax6+noa9Zrd for <sami@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:33:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com (e39.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.160]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E6D21E8224 for <sami@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:33:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from /spool/local by e39.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <sami@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:33:26 -0700
Received: from d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.177) by e39.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.139) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:32:44 -0700
Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5245BC40122 for <sami@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:30:41 -0700 (MST)
Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q21GUTxw127108 for <sami@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:30:30 -0700
Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q21GUchH016913 for <sami@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:30:38 -0700
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-232-28.mts.ibm.com [9.65.232.28]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q21GUbNi016798 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:30:38 -0700
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id q21GTdoM025848; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:29:40 -0500
Message-Id: <201203011629.q21GTdoM025848@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <4F4FA2CA.9060205@gmail.com>
References: <A27496C192613C44A82D819E1B98DB5721DAE9A6@SZXEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com> <201203011329.q21DTbkD023885@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4F9DA3.5030901@gmail.com> <201203011613.q21GDAob025552@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F4FA2CA.9060205@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> message dated "Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:24:42 -0900."
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:29:39 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 12030116-4242-0000-0000-000000EE0CBF
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 16:33:29 -0000

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> writes:

> 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.

Well, such traffic is dropped or held until it can be delivered to the
new location.

> It sounds to me like it's got much in common with old school
> supercomputer checkpoint/restart.

Of course! How else could this be done? :-)

In any case, it can be done today in the DC in under a second, which
is good enough for a lot of use cases.

Thomas