[cgl_discussion] [coyote@coyotegulch.com: 2.6.0 and Checkpointing]

[Zhao, Forrest]

Yes, CHPOX is on one node now.
But I think extending CHPOX to cluter-wide is not very difficult.
Moreover, openMosix can provide cluter-wide checkpointing service.

-----Original Message-----
From: Zhu, Yi 
Sent: 2003年11月25日 10:44
To: Zhao, Forrest
Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] [coyote at coyotegulch.com: 2.6.0 and Checkpointing]


I think the major difference is CHPOX is on one node, while AIS chpkt is among nodes (cluster).

-----Original Message-----
From: cgl_discussion-bounces at lists.osdl.org [mailto:cgl_discussion-bounces at lists.osdl.org] On Behalf Of Zhao, Forrest
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 10:29 AM
To: Rusty Lynch
Cc: cgl_discussion at osdl.org
Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] [coyote at coyotegulch.com: 2.6.0 and Checkpointing]


I have some thoughts about data check point service, just share them with you.

Generally speaking, there are two kinds of check-point services in terms of transparency. The first kind of check-point service is transparent to user/application.  CHPOX is just such kind of service. The major advantage of this kind is: there is no need to modify the application programs, the check pointing is done transparent to apps. The disadvantage of this kind is: it must save the whole process running context, so this can lead to inefficiency caused by saving unrelated, redundant data. The second kind of check-point service is not transparent to user/apps. 
The data check point service defined by SAF(www.saforum.org)/AIS is such kind. The advantage of this kind is: the user can choose what specific data to check point, so reduce the volume of data to be saved. But the major disadvantage is: the developers have to insert the check-pointing API to apps in order to get data check-pointing service, so this kind of check-point service is not transparent to user/apps.

So there is a tradeoff between two kinds of services. But I'm wondering if the carrier companies are willing to modify their product quality software in order to get check-pointing service?

Thanks,
Forrest


-----Original Message-----
From: cgl_discussion-bounces at lists.osdl.org [mailto:cgl_discussion-bounces at lists.osdl.org] On Behalf Of Rusty Lynch
Sent: 2003年11月25日 5:38
To: cgl_discussion at osdl.org
Subject: [cgl_discussion] [coyote at coyotegulch.com: 2.6.0 and Checkpointing]

I thought this might be interesting to others in the CGL world.  I have 
never ran across the chpox project before, and I'm not sure if this style of check-pointing is important to carrier environments, but it still looks interesting.

    --rustyl

----- Forwarded message from Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch.com> -----

Date: 	Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:49:59 -0500
From: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch.com>
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org>
Subject: 2.6.0 and Checkpointing

I've recently run across CHPOX, Checkpointing for Linux 
(http://www.cluster.kiev.ua/tasks/chpx_eng.html). I was wondering if 
anyone else could illuminate me further about using this module with 
2.6.0? I'll probably try this myself later today, after I get test10 
running.

Has any condieration been made for integrating checkpointing directly 
into the main kernel build? I'm thinking 2.7, not 2.6, of course.

-- 
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing
In development: Alex, a database for common folk

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion
_______________________________________________
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion