[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: "partial" container checkpoint
    On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:37 AM, 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 certainly like the ability to migrate jobs that might be in their
    own pid namespace, but not in their own network/IPC/user/etc


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-15 02:09    [W:0.020 / U:13.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site