[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-04 17:35    [W:0.129 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site