From owner-freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 10 15:17:15 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 016D110656C5 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:17:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@deman.com) Received: from cp11.openaccess.org (cp11.openaccess.org [66.114.41.130]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55068FC12 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:17:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mono-sis1.s.bli.openaccess.org ([66.114.32.149] helo=[192.168.2.226]) by cp11.openaccess.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ou52k-0002Os-T0 for freebsd-jail@freebsd.org; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:57:34 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) From: Michael DeMan In-Reply-To: <4C89B3DF.7050004@snap.net.nz> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:57:31 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1FD7CB89-8F7F-4E8B-A507-16E72784D906@deman.com> References: <4C89B3DF.7050004@snap.net.nz> To: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - cp11.openaccess.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - freebsd.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - deman.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: 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 15:17:15 -0000 There are other issues too - like network I/O, particularly dealing with = established TCP connections? Basically, you have to retain the in-state = 'memory' of the machine being migrated from, while also letting all = those 3rd party sockets know that everything is okay Thus far, I have yet to see any vendor that delivers 'zero downtime' = virtual migrations. There is always downtime - question is whether it = is costed in terms of milliseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, or worse? Definitely worth doing though. Personally, I have found value in = running OSPF/BGP on the jail host itself, and putting the actual jails = on the loopback interface. It certainly does not solve the problem in = terms of 'minute' by any means, but having the Iayer-3 component work = automatically definitely helps. I think this idea is a worthwhile goal, but I would much, much rather = see NFSv4 and ZFS wrapped up first. On Sep 9, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Peter Toth wrote: > Hi guys, >=20 > I was lately thinking around jail hot-migration feature where one jail > could be moved from one host to another without > shutting it down, something like vmotion in VMware world. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Then also there is the CPU problem.. >=20 > Sounds like a fair amount of work and development. >=20 > All comments are welcomed! >=20 > Cheers, > Peter > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-jail@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-jail > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-jail-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"