Re: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-10-07 Thread Glauber Costa
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 06:42:48AM +0200, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
   The default downtime is set to 30ms. This value triggers the
  convergence problem quite often. Maybe a longer default is more
  reasonable.
  What do you feel about 100 ms?
 
 What is the reasoning behind such short downtimes? Are there any application 
 that will fail with longer downtimes (let say 1s)?
 
 Note: on a 1Gbit/s net you can transfer only 10MB within 100ms

which accounts for more than 2 thousand pages, which sounds like enough for a 
first pass to me. For the default case,
It is hard to imagine an application dirtying more than 2k pages per-iteration
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-10-07 Thread Dietmar Maurer
  What is the reasoning behind such short downtimes? Are there any
 application that will fail with longer downtimes (let say 1s)?
 
  Note: on a 1Gbit/s net you can transfer only 10MB within 100ms
 
 which accounts for more than 2 thousand pages, which sounds like enough
 for a first pass to me. For the default case,
 It is hard to imagine an application dirtying more than 2k pages per-
 iteration

simply encode or decode a mpeg video (or play a video).

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-10-06 Thread Dietmar Maurer
  'bandwidth' is something that changes dynamically (or by user
 settings), so why don't we simply abort after some amount of
 transferred memory (constant * memory size). This can be implemented by
 the management application without problems, although it's much easier
 inside kvm.
 
 Easier, yes.
 
 But then once it is done, people wanting a different behaviour for some
 valid reason are stuck with that.
 This is the very reason we expose information about migration in the
 monitor to begin with.

No problem. Maybe you can just commit the first part of my patch then?

 Again, I believe the fix for this convergence problem does not belong
 here.

The default downtime is set to 30ms. This value triggers the convergence 
problem quite often. Maybe a longer default is more reasonable.

- Dietmar
 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-10-06 Thread Glauber Costa
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 10:30:14AM +0200, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
   'bandwidth' is something that changes dynamically (or by user
  settings), so why don't we simply abort after some amount of
  transferred memory (constant * memory size). This can be implemented by
  the management application without problems, although it's much easier
  inside kvm.
  
  Easier, yes.
  
  But then once it is done, people wanting a different behaviour for some
  valid reason are stuck with that.
  This is the very reason we expose information about migration in the
  monitor to begin with.
 
 No problem. Maybe you can just commit the first part of my patch then?
Anthony should do it.
Given the circumnstances: your method and the current method are both 
approximations.
Your works where current fails, and none of us can come up with a better 
solution,
I ack it.

 
  Again, I believe the fix for this convergence problem does not belong
  here.
 
 The default downtime is set to 30ms. This value triggers the convergence 
 problem quite often. Maybe a longer default is more reasonable.
What do you feel about 100 ms? 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-10-06 Thread Dietmar Maurer
  The default downtime is set to 30ms. This value triggers the
 convergence problem quite often. Maybe a longer default is more
 reasonable.
 What do you feel about 100 ms?

What is the reasoning behind such short downtimes? Are there any application 
that will fail with longer downtimes (let say 1s)?

Note: on a 1Gbit/s net you can transfer only 10MB within 100ms

- Dietmar



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-10-05 Thread Avi Kivity

On 09/30/2009 08:41 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote:


I just think of common scenarios like 'maintanace mode', where all VM should 
migrate to another host. A endless migrate task can make that fail.

For me, it is totally unclear what value I should set for 'max_downtime' to 
avoid that behavior?

   


We used to have a heuristic that said 'if an iteration transfers more 
pages than the previous iteration, we've stopped converging'.  Why 
wouldn't that work?


--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-10-05 Thread Glauber Costa
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 02:17:30PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
 On 09/30/2009 08:41 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote:

 I just think of common scenarios like 'maintanace mode', where all VM should 
 migrate to another host. A endless migrate task can make that fail.

 For me, it is totally unclear what value I should set for 'max_downtime' to 
 avoid that behavior?



 We used to have a heuristic that said 'if an iteration transfers more  
 pages than the previous iteration, we've stopped converging'.  Why  
 wouldn't that work?
Because it seems people agreed that mgmt tools would be the place for those 
heuristics.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-10-05 Thread Avi Kivity

On 10/05/2009 03:04 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 02:17:30PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
   

On 09/30/2009 08:41 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
 

I just think of common scenarios like 'maintanace mode', where all VM should 
migrate to another host. A endless migrate task can make that fail.

For me, it is totally unclear what value I should set for 'max_downtime' to 
avoid that behavior?


   

We used to have a heuristic that said 'if an iteration transfers more
pages than the previous iteration, we've stopped converging'.  Why
wouldn't that work?
 

Because it seems people agreed that mgmt tools would be the place for those 
heuristics.
   


Heuristics like number of pages, maybe.  But since we don't export 
iteration information, we can't expect management tools to stop the 
guest if migration doesn't converge.


I suppose it could issue a 'stop' after some amount of time (constant * 
memory size / bandwidth).


--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-10-05 Thread Dietmar Maurer
 We used to have a heuristic that said 'if an iteration transfers more
 pages than the previous iteration, we've stopped converging'.  Why
 wouldn't that work?

This does not protect you from very long migration times.

- Dietmar

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-10-05 Thread Avi Kivity

On 10/05/2009 04:01 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote:

We used to have a heuristic that said 'if an iteration transfers more
pages than the previous iteration, we've stopped converging'.  Why
wouldn't that work?
 

This does not protect you from very long migration times.

   


Well, if each iteration transfers one page less than the previous one, 
it doesn't.


You can always issue a 'stop' from the monitor.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-10-05 Thread Dietmar Maurer
 Heuristics like number of pages, maybe.  But since we don't export
 iteration information, we can't expect management tools to stop the
 guest if migration doesn't converge.
 
 I suppose it could issue a 'stop' after some amount of time (constant *
 memory size / bandwidth).

'bandwidth' is something that changes dynamically (or by user settings), so why 
don't we simply abort after some amount of transferred memory (constant * 
memory size). This can be implemented by the management application without 
problems, although it's much easier inside kvm.

- Dietmar


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-10-05 Thread Dietmar Maurer


 -Original Message-
 From: Avi Kivity [mailto:a...@redhat.com]
 Sent: Montag, 05. Oktober 2009 16:06
 To: Dietmar Maurer
 Cc: Glauber Costa; Anthony Liguori; kvm
 Subject: Re: migrate_set_downtime bug
 
 On 10/05/2009 04:01 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
  We used to have a heuristic that said 'if an iteration transfers
 more
  pages than the previous iteration, we've stopped converging'.  Why
  wouldn't that work?
 
  This does not protect you from very long migration times.
 
 
 
 Well, if each iteration transfers one page less than the previous one,
 it doesn't.

That approach also depends on bandwidth changes.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-10-05 Thread Dietmar Maurer
 On 10/05/2009 04:01 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
  We used to have a heuristic that said 'if an iteration transfers
 more
  pages than the previous iteration, we've stopped converging'.  Why
  wouldn't that work?
 
  This does not protect you from very long migration times.
 
 
 
 Well, if each iteration transfers one page less than the previous one,
 it doesn't.

So how long does a migration take in this scenario when you have a VM with 8GB 
RAM?

- dietmar

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-10-05 Thread Avi Kivity

On 10/05/2009 04:08 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote:

Well, if each iteration transfers one page less than the previous one,
it doesn't.
 

So how long does a migration take in this scenario when you have a VM with 8GB 
RAM?

   


At 1 Gbps, about 2 years.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-10-05 Thread Dietmar Maurer
 We used to have a heuristic that said 'if an iteration transfers more
 pages than the previous iteration, we've stopped converging'.  Why
 wouldn't that work?

I agree that this is the 'right' approach - but it is just too difficult to 
detect that we are not 'converging', and it does not set a limit on migration 
time.

- Dietmar

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-10-05 Thread Glauber Costa
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 04:09:43PM +0200, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
  Heuristics like number of pages, maybe.  But since we don't export
  iteration information, we can't expect management tools to stop the
  guest if migration doesn't converge.
  
  I suppose it could issue a 'stop' after some amount of time (constant *
  memory size / bandwidth).
 
 'bandwidth' is something that changes dynamically (or by user settings), so 
 why don't we simply abort after some amount of transferred memory (constant * 
 memory size). This can be implemented by the management application without 
 problems, although it's much easier inside kvm.
 
Easier, yes.

But then once it is done, people wanting a different behaviour for some valid 
reason are stuck with that.
This is the very reason we expose information about migration in the monitor to 
begin with.

Again, I believe the fix for this convergence problem does not belong here.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-09-30 Thread Dietmar Maurer
 Since the problem you pinpointed do exist, I would suggest measuring
 the average load of the last,
 say, 10 iterations.

The last 10 interation does not define a fixed time. I guess it is much more 
reasonable to measure the average of the last '10 seconds'.

But usually a migration only takes about 10-30 seconds. So do you really want 
to add additional complexity?

- Dietmar

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-09-30 Thread Dietmar Maurer
Another problem occur when max_downtime is too short. This can results in never 
ending migration task.

To reproduce just play a video inside a VM and set max_downtime to 30ns

Sure, one can argument that this behavior is expected.

But the following would avoid the problem:

+if ((stage == 2)  (bytes_transferred  2*ram_bytes_total())) {
+return 1;
+}

Or do you think that is not reasonable?

- Dietmar

 -Original Message-
 From: Glauber Costa [mailto:glom...@redhat.com]
 Sent: Mittwoch, 30. September 2009 06:49
 To: Dietmar Maurer
 Cc: Anthony Liguori; kvm
 Subject: Re: migrate_set_downtime bug
 
 On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 06:36:57PM +0200, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
   Also, if this is really the case (buffered), then the bandwidth
 capping
   part
   of migration is also wrong.
  
   Have you compared the reported bandwidth to your actual bandwith ?
 I
   suspect
   the source of the problem can be that we're currently ignoring the
 time
   we take
   to transfer the state of the devices, and maybe it is not
 negligible.
  
 
  I have a 1GB network (e1000 card), and get values like bwidth=0.98 -
 which is much too high.
 The main reason for not using the whole migration time is that it can
 lead to values
 that are not very helpful in situation where the network load changes
 too much.
 
 Since the problem you pinpointed do exist, I would suggest measuring
 the average load of the last,
 say, 10 iterations. How would that work for you?



migrate.diff
Description: migrate.diff


Re: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-09-30 Thread Glauber Costa
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:55:24AM +0200, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
 Another problem occur when max_downtime is too short. This can results in 
 never ending migration task.
 
 To reproduce just play a video inside a VM and set max_downtime to 30ns
 
 Sure, one can argument that this behavior is expected.
 
 But the following would avoid the problem:
 
 +if ((stage == 2)  (bytes_transferred  2*ram_bytes_total())) {
 +return 1;
 +}
why 2 * ? 
This means we'll have to transfer the whole contents of RAM at least twice to 
hit this condition, right?

 
 Or do you think that is not reasonable?
 
 - Dietmar
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Glauber Costa [mailto:glom...@redhat.com]
  Sent: Mittwoch, 30. September 2009 06:49
  To: Dietmar Maurer
  Cc: Anthony Liguori; kvm
  Subject: Re: migrate_set_downtime bug
  
  On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 06:36:57PM +0200, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
Also, if this is really the case (buffered), then the bandwidth
  capping
part
of migration is also wrong.
   
Have you compared the reported bandwidth to your actual bandwith ?
  I
suspect
the source of the problem can be that we're currently ignoring the
  time
we take
to transfer the state of the devices, and maybe it is not
  negligible.
   
  
   I have a 1GB network (e1000 card), and get values like bwidth=0.98 -
  which is much too high.
  The main reason for not using the whole migration time is that it can
  lead to values
  that are not very helpful in situation where the network load changes
  too much.
  
  Since the problem you pinpointed do exist, I would suggest measuring
  the average load of the last,
  say, 10 iterations. How would that work for you?
 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-09-30 Thread Dietmar Maurer
 On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:55:24AM +0200, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
  Another problem occur when max_downtime is too short. This can
 results in never ending migration task.
 
  To reproduce just play a video inside a VM and set max_downtime to
 30ns
 
  Sure, one can argument that this behavior is expected.
 
  But the following would avoid the problem:
 
  +if ((stage == 2)  (bytes_transferred  2*ram_bytes_total())) {
  +return 1;
  +}
 why 2 * ?
 This means we'll have to transfer the whole contents of RAM at least
 twice to hit this condition, right?

Yes, this is just an arbitrary limit. 

- Dietmar

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-09-30 Thread Glauber Costa
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 04:11:32PM +0200, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
  On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:55:24AM +0200, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
   Another problem occur when max_downtime is too short. This can
  results in never ending migration task.
  
   To reproduce just play a video inside a VM and set max_downtime to
  30ns
  
   Sure, one can argument that this behavior is expected.
  
   But the following would avoid the problem:
  
   +if ((stage == 2)  (bytes_transferred  2*ram_bytes_total())) {
   +return 1;
   +}
  why 2 * ?
  This means we'll have to transfer the whole contents of RAM at least
  twice to hit this condition, right?
 
 Yes, this is just an arbitrary limit. 
I don't know. If we are going for a limit, I would prefere a limit of pages yet 
to transfer,
not pages already transferred.

However, the very reason this whole thing was written in the first place, was 
to leave choices
to management tools ontop of qemu, not qemu itself. So I would say yes, if you 
set limit for 30ns,
you asked for it never finishing.

Your first patch is okay, tough.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-09-30 Thread Dietmar Maurer
+if ((stage == 2)  (bytes_transferred 
 2*ram_bytes_total())) {
+return 1;
+}
   why 2 * ?
   This means we'll have to transfer the whole contents of RAM at
 least
   twice to hit this condition, right?
 
  Yes, this is just an arbitrary limit.
 I don't know. If we are going for a limit, I would prefere a limit of
 pages yet to transfer,
 not pages already transferred.
 
 However, the very reason this whole thing was written in the first
 place, was to leave choices
 to management tools ontop of qemu, not qemu itself. So I would say yes,
 if you set limit for 30ns,
 you asked for it never finishing.

I just think of common scenarios like 'maintanace mode', where all VM should 
migrate to another host. A endless migrate task can make that fail. 

For me, it is totally unclear what value I should set for 'max_downtime' to 
avoid that behavior?

- Dietmar


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-09-29 Thread Dietmar Maurer
Seems the bwidth calculation is the problem. The code simply does:

bwidth = (bytes_transferred - bytes_transferred_last) / timediff

but I assume network traffic is buffered, so calculated bwidth is sometimes 
much too high. 

- Dietmar

 -Original Message-
 From: kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On
 Behalf Of Dietmar Maurer
 Sent: Dienstag, 29. September 2009 15:01
 To: kvm
 Subject: migrate_set_downtime bug
 
 using 0.11.0, live migration works as expected, but max downtime does
 not seem to work, for example:
 
 # migrate_set_downtime 1
 
 After that tcp migration has much longer downtimes (up to 20 seconds).
 
 Also, it seems that the 'monitor' is locked (take up to 10 seconds
 until I get a monitor prompt).
 
 Someone else get this behavior?
 
 - Dietmar
 
 --
 To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
 the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
 More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-09-29 Thread Dietmar Maurer
this patch solves the problem by calculation an average bandwidth.

- Dietmar

 -Original Message-
 From: kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On
 Behalf Of Dietmar Maurer
 Sent: Dienstag, 29. September 2009 16:37
 To: kvm
 Subject: RE: migrate_set_downtime bug
 
 Seems the bwidth calculation is the problem. The code simply does:
 
 bwidth = (bytes_transferred - bytes_transferred_last) / timediff
 
 but I assume network traffic is buffered, so calculated bwidth is
 sometimes much too high.
 


migrate.diff
Description: migrate.diff


Re: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-09-29 Thread Anthony Liguori

Dietmar Maurer wrote:

this patch solves the problem by calculation an average bandwidth.
  


Can you take a look Glauber?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori


- Dietmar

  

-Original Message-
From: kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On
Behalf Of Dietmar Maurer
Sent: Dienstag, 29. September 2009 16:37
To: kvm
Subject: RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

Seems the bwidth calculation is the problem. The code simply does:

bwidth = (bytes_transferred - bytes_transferred_last) / timediff

but I assume network traffic is buffered, so calculated bwidth is
sometimes much too high.




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-09-29 Thread Glauber Costa
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:39:57AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
 Dietmar Maurer wrote:
 this patch solves the problem by calculation an average bandwidth.
   

 Can you take a look Glauber?

 Regards,

 Anthony Liguori

 - Dietmar

   
 -Original Message-
 From: kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On
 Behalf Of Dietmar Maurer
 Sent: Dienstag, 29. September 2009 16:37
 To: kvm
 Subject: RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

 Seems the bwidth calculation is the problem. The code simply does:

 bwidth = (bytes_transferred - bytes_transferred_last) / timediff

 but I assume network traffic is buffered, so calculated bwidth is
 sometimes much too high.
On the other hand, you are just calculating the total since the beginning of
migration, which is not right either.

Also, if this is really the case (buffered), then the bandwidth capping part
of migration is also wrong.

Have you compared the reported bandwidth to your actual bandwith ? I suspect
the source of the problem can be that we're currently ignoring the time we take
to transfer the state of the devices, and maybe it is not negligible.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


RE: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-09-29 Thread Dietmar Maurer
 Also, if this is really the case (buffered), then the bandwidth capping
 part
 of migration is also wrong.
 
 Have you compared the reported bandwidth to your actual bandwith ? I
 suspect
 the source of the problem can be that we're currently ignoring the time
 we take
 to transfer the state of the devices, and maybe it is not negligible.
 

I have a 1GB network (e1000 card), and get values like bwidth=0.98 - which is 
much too high.

- Dietmar

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: migrate_set_downtime bug

2009-09-29 Thread Glauber Costa
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 06:36:57PM +0200, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
  Also, if this is really the case (buffered), then the bandwidth capping
  part
  of migration is also wrong.
  
  Have you compared the reported bandwidth to your actual bandwith ? I
  suspect
  the source of the problem can be that we're currently ignoring the time
  we take
  to transfer the state of the devices, and maybe it is not negligible.
  
 
 I have a 1GB network (e1000 card), and get values like bwidth=0.98 - which is 
 much too high.
The main reason for not using the whole migration time is that it can lead to 
values
that are not very helpful in situation where the network load changes too much.

Since the problem you pinpointed do exist, I would suggest measuring the 
average load of the last,
say, 10 iterations. How would that work for you?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html