Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Nov 2010 12:04:28 -0400 | From | Gene Cooperman <> | Subject | Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch |
| |
Yes, we are working with Condor to have them validate DMTCP. Time will tell. - Gene
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 08:36:16AM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On 11/04/2010 02:47 AM, Nathan Lynch wrote: > >> In this case whitelisting the allowed > >> state by requiring special APIs for all I/O (or even just standard > >> APIs as long as they are supposed by the C/R lib you're linked against) > >> is the more pragmatic, and I think faithful aproach. > > > > I don't think users will go for it. They'll continue to use dodgy > > out-of-tree kernel modules and/or LD_PRELOAD hacks instead of porting > > their applications to a new library. I think a C/R library is an > > "ideal" solution, but it's one that nobody would use - especially in > > HPC, unless the library somehow provides better performance. > > I hear that there are plans to integrate one of the userland > snapshotting implementations with HPC workload manager. ISTR the > combination to be condor + dmtcp but not sure. I think things like > that make a lot of sense. Scientists writing programs for HPC > clusters already work in given frameworks and what those applications > do and how to recover are pretty well confined/defined. If you > integrate snapshotting with such frameworks, it becomes pretty easy > for both the admins and users. > > I'll talk about other issues in the reply to Oren's email. > > Thanks. > > -- > tejun
| |