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    [W:0.025 / U:0.220 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site