similar to: Backup suspended/paused VM ?

Hi, When I tested the xm pause/unpause command, I found poor error messages. The following is the error messages. # xm list Name ID Mem(MiB) VCPUs State Time(s) Domain-0 0 492 1 r----- 394.6 vm1 1 512 1 r----- 3.0 # xm pause 0 Error: (22, ''Invalid argument'') # xm pause

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08/06/2014 10:06 AM, Yuanzhen Gu wrote: > > yes, I got your point, thanks very much Eric. > > not entirely, because you still top-posted. > > got it entirely this time, not top-posted. > > > > If I want to take a distributed snapshot, which need pause all the VMs > and >

On 08/06/2014 10:06 AM, Yuanzhen Gu wrote: > yes, I got your point, thanks very much Eric. not entirely, because you still top-posted. > > If I want to take a distributed snapshot, which need pause all the VMs and > then take snapshot, how can I control the pause for all the VMs? You mean, you have multiple VMs, and want to take a snapshot of all their storage at the same point in

On 08/06/2014 11:17 AM, Yuanzhen Gu wrote: >> Guest freeze/thaw (virDomainFSFreeze) only works on a live guest. So >> what you will have to do is: >> >> virDomainFSFreeze(vm1, ...) >> virDomainFSFreeze(vm2, ...) >> virDomainSuspend(vm1) >> virDomainSuspend(vm2) >> virDomainSnapshotCreateXML(vm1, ...) >> virDomainSnapshotCreateXML(vm2, ...)

Hi, I have found the cpu time partitioning based on cpu shares weights not very intuitive. On RHEL64, I deployed two qemu/kvm VMs VM1 with 1 vcpu and 512 cpu shares VM2 with 2 vcpus and 1024 cpu shares I pinned their vcpus to specific host pcpus: VM1 vcpu 0 to host pcpu1 VM2 vcpu 0 to host pcpu1, VM2 vcpu 1 to host pcpu2 I executed inside the VMs a simple process that consume all

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:01:38 +0100 Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> wrote: > [It may be necessary to remove virtio-dev at lists.oasis-open.org from CC > if you are a non-TC member.] > > Hi, > Some modern networking applications bypass the kernel network stack so > that rx/tx rings and DMA buffers can be directly mapped. This is > typical in DPDK applications

Libvirt doesn't care about security during hot add disk images. It even accepts addition of disk images of other guest running on the host. Steps followed to create this scenario : Started two VMs with following security configurations: vm1: <seclabel type='dynamic' model='selinux' relabel='yes'>

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs > exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation > of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since > any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest > transmission. Consider the following

[It may be necessary to remove virtio-dev at lists.oasis-open.org from CC if you are a non-TC member.] Hi, Some modern networking applications bypass the kernel network stack so that rx/tx rings and DMA buffers can be directly mapped. This is typical in DPDK applications where virtio-net currently is one of several NIC choices. Existing virtio-net implementations are not optimized for VM-to-VM

[It may be necessary to remove virtio-dev at lists.oasis-open.org from CC if you are a non-TC member.] Hi, Some modern networking applications bypass the kernel network stack so that rx/tx rings and DMA buffers can be directly mapped. This is typical in DPDK applications where virtio-net currently is one of several NIC choices. Existing virtio-net implementations are not optimized for VM-to-VM

On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:35:21AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2015-08-31 16:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Hello! > > During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting virtio on top > > of ivshmem. > > No, not on top of ivshmem. On top of shared memory. Our model is > different from the simplistic ivshmem. > > > I have considered it, and came up with an

Hi , I have two virtual machines VM1 and VM2. Then I have added eth0 of my VM to 'default' network. Use case :- I want to monitor all traffic on virbr0('default' network). Steps followed :- 1. Add VM1 eth0 to virbr0 2. Add VM2 eth1 to virbr0 3. brctl setageing ovsbr0 0 ..(To put bridge in promiscuous) Now I am running tcpdump on eth1 of VM2 and trying to ping

On 03/13/2014 09:28 AM, Jason Wang wrote: > On 03/10/2014 04:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >>>> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >>>> of both host and guest. But it was too

Am 2015-04-27 um 15:01 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com> wrote: >> Am 2015-04-27 um 14:35 schrieb Jan Kiszka: >>> Am 2015-04-27 um 12:17 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: >>>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Luke Gorrie <luke at snabb.co> wrote: >>>>> On 24 April 2015 at 15:22, Stefan

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> wrote: > On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:01:38 +0100 > Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> wrote: > >> [It may be necessary to remove virtio-dev at lists.oasis-open.org from CC >> if you are a non-TC member.] >> >> Hi, >> Some modern networking applications bypass the kernel

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> wrote: > On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:01:38 +0100 > Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> wrote: > >> [It may be necessary to remove virtio-dev at lists.oasis-open.org from CC >> if you are a non-TC member.] >> >> Hi, >> Some modern networking applications bypass the kernel

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 03:11:21PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On 02/26/2014 02:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu wrote: > >On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote: > >>On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > >>>>We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >

Am 2015-04-27 um 12:17 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Luke Gorrie <luke at snabb.co> wrote: >> On 24 April 2015 at 15:22, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> The motivation for making VM-to-VM fast is that while software >>> switches on the host are efficient today (thanks to vhost-user), there

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs > exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation > of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since > any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest > transmission. Consider the following

On 2014/2/26 13:53, Jason Wang wrote: > On 02/25/2014 09:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>> We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >>> exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >>> of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some