lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Subject"partial" container checkpoint
From
Date
On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 10:29 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> I think the perceived need for it comes, as above, from the pure
> checkpoint-a-whole-container-only view. So long as you will
> checkpoint/restore a whole container, then you'll end up doing
> something requiring privilege anyway. But that is not all of
> the use cases.

Yeah, there are certainly a lot of shades of gray here. I've been
talking to some HPC guys in the last couple of days. They certainly
have a need for checkpoint/restart, but much less of a need for doing
entire containers.

It also occurs to me that we have the potential to pull some
long-out-of-tree users back in. VMADump users, for instance:

http://bproc.sourceforge.net/c268.html

If we could do *just* a selective checkpoint of a single process's VMAs,
the bproc users could probably use sys_checkpoint() in some way. That's
*way* less than an entire container, but it would be really useful to
some people.

-- Dave



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-14 18:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site