On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 02:18:53PM -0300, Marconi Rivello wrote:
> Hi, Luciano.
>
> On 8/10/07, Luciano Rocha <strange@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 12:42:08PM -0300, Marconi Rivello wrote:
> > > Another issue that I described on a previous email (which,
> > unfortunately,
> > > didn't get any replies) is that this downtime increases to more than 20
> > > seconds if I set the domU's memory to 512MB (the maxmem set is 1024MB).
> > I
> > > repeated the test successively, from one side to the other, with mem set
> > to
> > > 512 and 1024, and the result was always the same. Around 3s with mem =
> > > maxmem, and around 24s with mem=512 and maxmem=1024.
> > >
> >
> > You are using the option --live to migrate, aren't you?
>
>
> Yes, I am. :)
Oh. Well, then, could you try without? :)
Also, try the reverse. Ping an outside host in the domU.
> Even if I weren't, it would make sense to expect a lower downtime (or the
> same downtime) by reducing the domU memory. But it takes longer if I reduce
> the domU's memory.
That is odd. Is the Dom0 memory the same (ie., fixed)?
> Would you happen to have any ideas on why it behaves like that?
No idea. I might expect a longer migration time for a machine with a
very active working set, but not a much longer downtime. That should be
only a freeze, final sync, and resume on the other side.
--
lfr
0/0
pgpPLYH40ceCV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home