[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch
    Gene Cooperman [] wrote:
    | > RELIABILITY checkpoint w/ single syscall; non-atomic, cannot find leaks
    | > atomic operation. guaranteed to determine restartability
    | > restartability for containers
    | My understanding is that the guarantees apply for Linux containers, but not
    | for a tree of processes. Does this imply that linux-cr would have some
    | of the same reliability issues as DMTCP for a tree of processes? (I mean
    | the question sincerely, and am not intending to be rude.) In any case,
    | won't DMTCP and Linux C/R have to handle orthogonal reliability issues
    | such as external database, time virtualization, and other examples
    | from our previous post?

    Yes if the user attempts to checkpoint a partial container (what we refer
    to process subtree) or fails to snapshot/restore filesystem there could be
    leaks that we cannot detect.

    But one guarantee we are trying to provide is that if the user checkpoints
    a _complete_ container, then we will detect a leak if one exists.

    Is there a way to establish a set of constraints (eg: run application in a
    container, snapshot/restore filesystem) and then provide leak detection with
    a pure userpsace implementation ?


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-11-22 18:57    [W:0.019 / U:4.704 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site