RE: [Xen-devel] Should "xm restore" be able to create two domains with the same name?

["Petersson, Mats" <Mats.Petersson@xxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Petersson, Mats
> Sent: 22 May 2007 12:16
> To: Daniel P. Berrange; Keir Fraser
> Cc: xen-devel
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Should "xm restore" be able to 
> create two domains with the same name?
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel P. Berrange [mailto:berrange@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> > Sent: 18 May 2007 15:08
> > To: Keir Fraser
> > Cc: Petersson, Mats; xen-devel
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Should "xm restore" be able to 
> > create two domains with the same name?
> > 
> > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 02:55:22PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 18/5/07 14:49, "Petersson, Mats" 
> <Mats.Petersson@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > If I do "xm save dom file", followed by "xm restore file; 
> > xm restore
> > > > file", I get two domains with the same name. Surely, 
> > that's not quite
> > > > right? [Particularly since they both will be using the 
> > same disk-image,
> > > > etc]. 
> > > 
> > > You shouldn't do that. ;-)
> > > 
> > > The second restore ought to fail when xend (or the hotplug 
> > scripts) realise
> > > that the block device is already in use.
> > 
> > The second restore ought to fail before it gets anywhere 
> near hotplug
> > scripts. XenD should be enforcing name & UUID uniqueness 
> when creating
> > guest VMs.  Even 'xm create' lets you start the same guest twice 
> > 
> > http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2007-04/msg
> > 00279.html
> 
> Do you have any info to bracket back when this was still working? I
> don't even really know (for sure) which file(s) to look at [of course,
> it's limited to a few files, but all have quote a few changes lately],
> since I don't know where this functionality used to be (or where it's
> supposed to go). I'll keep looking, but having a "time-limit" for it
> working correctly would reduce the number of changesets. The data of
> your test is roughly 14800, so it has to be broken before that
> changeset.

Interestingly, I found that "xm-test" has a test
".../tests/create/04_create_conflictname_neg.py", which supposedly test
this behaviour. It seems unchanged for quite some time - so presumably
this test is now "failing". 

--
Mats
> 
> --
> Mats
> > 
> > Dan.
> > -- 
> > |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston.  +1 
> > 978 392 2496 -=|
> > |=-           Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/  
> >             -=|
> > |=-               Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/   
> >             -=|
> > |=-  GnuPG: 7D3B9505   F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF 
> > F742 7D3B 9505  -=| 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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