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

Peter Badovinatz tabmowzo at us.ibm.com
Tue Nov 25 13:49:40 PST 2003

Zhao, Forrest wrote:

> 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?

They have been in the past.  Carrier applications most certainly have
had strict control over their checkpointing.  The SAF AIS checkpointing
service is predicated on this (and since a number of equipment
manufacturers were involved, they should have some idea).

> Thanks,
> Forrest
> -----Original Message-----
> <snip>

Peter R. Badovinatz aka 'Wombat' -- IBM Linux Technology Center
preferred: tabmowzo at us.ibm.com / alternate: wombat at us.ibm.com
These are my opinions and absolutely not official opinions of IBM, Corp.

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list