From owner-freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 10 12:48:45 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F26C106566B for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:48:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andrew.hotlab@hotmail.com) Received: from snt0-omc4-s32.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc4-s32.snt0.hotmail.com [65.55.90.235]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 793D88FC17 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:48:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from SNT139-W26 ([65.55.90.201]) by snt0-omc4-s32.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:36:42 -0700 Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [81.174.54.98] From: Andrew Hotlab To: , Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:36:42 +0000 Importance: Normal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Sep 2010 12:36:42.0555 (UTC) FILETIME=[D28F18B0:01CB50E4] Cc: Subject: RE: Jail hot migration X-BeenThere: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about FreeBSD jail\(8\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:48:45 -0000 > Date: Fri=2C 10 Sep 2010 16:28:15 +1200 > From: freebsd@snap.net.nz > To: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org > Subject: Jail hot migration > > Hi guys=2C > > I was lately thinking around jail hot-migration feature where one jail > could be moved from one host to another without > shutting it down=2C something like vmotion in VMware world. > > The storage layer should be easy with zfs send and receive or some form > of shared storage. The tricky part would > be a memory copy from one node to another and also the CPU handling. > > Anyone has an idea how this could be achieved? I guess it would require > a kernel module which could take care of memory > reservations and a daemon to copy and incrementally sync the jails > memory across. > > Then also there is the CPU problem.. > > Sounds like a fair amount of work and development. > > All comments are welcomed! > Well=2C I'm not a developer=2C but I think that the jail framework surely d= eservestobe evolved in something more "friendly" from a sysadmin's point of= view. The architecture is great=2C and that's just enough to consolidate a lot of= workloads=2Cbut for some applications there are features (resource contain= ers=2C offline andonline migration of jails=2C etc.) that need to be improv= ed to be affordable in aproduction environment. I think that a lot of work is getting done (resource container and virtuali= zationstack projects have ben just sponsored by the FreeBSD Foundation)=2C = I do not knowhow much time will take to reach a complete "business-ready" v= irtualizationframework=2C neither if they are on the right path=2C but I'm = quite confident=2C because I'msure that the simplicity of the FreeBSD solut= ion will rule any other virtualizationframework out there. As the feature you are asking for=2C I think that resource containers and o= fflinemigration should be considered first=2C because overall they'll have = more impact onbusiness environments. Further=2C I believe that building a h= ot migration procedureworking with third-party running applications will be= a very complex task to achieve=2Cmaybe too expensive at this time=2C compa= red to the amount of work required. That's an interesting argument=2C I'll be glad if more member of the Commun= ity willcontribute with their considerations. Sincerely. Andrew =