Re: [Xen-devel] New feature support - xl or xm ?

["Vincent, Pradeep" <pradeepv@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I haven’t looked deeply into ‘xl’ but..

>From the recent Xen summit, I walked away thinking ‘xl’ didn’t have the callback mechanisms (e.g. Cleanup etc) and this helped it stay stateless while falling short of full ‘xm’ replacement. This email thread indicates ‘xm/xend’ will be deprecated in due course of time. Did I miss anything here ?

Is migration of VMs from ‘xm’ managed hosts to ‘xl’ managed hosts expected to work ? 

I think moving away from commonly used xend/xm could be a bit of a thorn particularly if the ‘xm’ to ‘xl’ migration isn’t expected to work. 

Thoughts ?

Thanks,

- Pradeep Vincent

On 6/1/10 3:20 AM, "Ian Jackson" <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Stefano Stabellini writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] New feature support - xl or xm ?"):
> > On Fri, 28 May 2010, Dulloor wrote:
> > > If we are to add new guest configuration parameters, is it enough to
> > > make it work with xl ?
> > > Sorry, if I missed any past mails regarding this, but (in general)
> > > should people think xl or xm or both ?
> >
> > xl is strongly recommended at this point.
>
> Indeed.  I think at this point it's probably OK to submit features for
> libxl only and not add them to xm/xend too.
>
> Ian.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel