Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 11 Jun 1998 20:49:00 +0330 | From | mshar@vax ... | Subject | Re: Remote fork() and Parallel Programming |
| |
"Michael O'Reilly" <michael@metal.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> *) process migration is more flexible and more transparent than an explicit >> checkpoint / restart mechanism. > >Nonsense. You can implement process migration by using >checkpoint/restart, but there's no way you can use process migration >to implement checkpoint/restarting.
Why would you want checkpoint/restart if you had transparent process migration? Checkpoint/restart requires work on the part of the application programmer, while transparent process migration does notbecause it is done by the kernel).
I was not concerned with theoretical debates about the relative powers of some OS mechanisms, but if you had read a bit further of what I had written then you might have seen this:
"Now we come to more practical points: It may be possible to simulate the "BAD" mechanisms with the "GOOD" ones (actually, some one implementing the "BAD" mechanisms inside the operating system might very well do so, as the "GOOD" ones are more primitive), but I am not sure if it is a good idea to let application programmers be faced by such issues. One should remember that application programmers have other things to worry about (like the problems that their work is supposed to solve in the first place)"
Think twice before making knee-jerk reactions and describing someone else's comments as "nonsense".
-Kamran Karimi
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |