Re: [libvirt] KVM processes -- should we be able to attach them to the libvirtd process?

2009-05-07 Thread Matthew Farrellee
Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:38:13PM -0500, Matthew Farrellee wrote: Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 04:13:38PM -0400, Hugh O. Brock wrote: Not too long ago we took a patch that allowed QEMU VMs to keep running even if libvirtd died or was restarted.

Re: [libvirt] KVM processes -- should we be able to attach them to the libvirtd process?

2009-05-06 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:38:13PM -0500, Matthew Farrellee wrote: Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 04:13:38PM -0400, Hugh O. Brock wrote: Not too long ago we took a patch that allowed QEMU VMs to keep running even if libvirtd died or was restarted. I was talking to

Re: [libvirt] KVM processes -- should we be able to attach them to the libvirtd process?

2009-05-06 Thread Gerrit Slomma
Hugh O. Brock schrieb: Not too long ago we took a patch that allowed QEMU VMs to keep running even if libvirtd died or was restarted. I was talking to Matt Farellee (cc'd) this afternoon about manageability, and he feels fairly strongly that this behavior should be optional -- in other words,

Re: [libvirt] KVM processes -- should we be able to attach them to the libvirtd process?

2009-05-06 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 08:56:18PM +0200, Gerrit Slomma wrote: Daniel P. Berrange schrieb: On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:38:13PM -0500, Matthew Farrellee wrote: It doesn't appear to be the case that the libvirtd daemon can trivially restart and continue with no interruptions. Right now it

[libvirt] KVM processes -- should we be able to attach them to the libvirtd process?

2009-05-05 Thread Hugh O. Brock
Not too long ago we took a patch that allowed QEMU VMs to keep running even if libvirtd died or was restarted. I was talking to Matt Farellee (cc'd) this afternoon about manageability, and he feels fairly strongly that this behavior should be optional -- in other words, it should be possible to

Re: [libvirt] KVM processes -- should we be able to attach them to the libvirtd process?

2009-05-05 Thread Łukasz Mierzwa
Dnia wtorek 05 maj 2009 o 22:13:38 Hugh O. Brock napisał(a): Not too long ago we took a patch that allowed QEMU VMs to keep running even if libvirtd died or was restarted. I was talking to Matt Farellee (cc'd) this afternoon about manageability, and he feels fairly strongly that this behavior

Re: [libvirt] KVM processes -- should we be able to attach them to the libvirtd process?

2009-05-05 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 04:13:38PM -0400, Hugh O. Brock wrote: Not too long ago we took a patch that allowed QEMU VMs to keep running even if libvirtd died or was restarted. I was talking to Matt Farellee (cc'd) this afternoon about manageability, and he feels fairly strongly that this

Re: [libvirt] KVM processes -- should we be able to attach them to the libvirtd process?

2009-05-05 Thread Matthew Farrellee
Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 04:13:38PM -0400, Hugh O. Brock wrote: Not too long ago we took a patch that allowed QEMU VMs to keep running even if libvirtd died or was restarted. I was talking to Matt Farrellee (cc'd) this afternoon about manageability, and he feels