lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: "partial" container checkpoint
From
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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
namespaces.

Paul


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-15 02:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans