lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: "partial" container checkpoint
From
Date
On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 09:37 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 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.

We'd be uncomfortable running partial checkpoints. We'd much rather have
slurm spawn off a container and just checkpoint that. Who knows what
users code spawns off other processes...

Kevin

>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-14 20:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans