lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: State of linux checkpointing?
Date
Tim Connors wrote:

> Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> said on Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:23:00 -0400:
>> Neal D. Becker wrote:
>> > I wonder if there is a checkpointing that will work with 2.6 kernels?
>> >
>> > I only need relatively basic checkpointing. No sockets or fancy stuff.
>>
>> You only need checkpointing when your application programmers are lazy
>> and don't care about data integrity. :)
>
> Or you are running some kind of cluster where you want the
> applications to be checkpointed transparently without the application
> knowing the details of how or when they will be swapped out (but this
> will need sockets anyway, so won't happen anytime soon).
>

I want checkpointing for:

1) Protect against job interruption due to system crash, operator error,
power loss, whatever

2) Job mygration. Even manual job mygration would be nice.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.095 / U:0.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site