jeremy at goop.org
Tue Aug 12 10:04:57 PDT 2008
Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "closed files". Either the app has a fd,
>>> it doesn't, or it is in sys_open() somewhere. We have to get the app
>>> into a quiescent state before we can checkpoint, so we basically just
>>> say that we won't checkpoint things that are *in* the kernel.
>> It's common for an app to write a tmp file, close it, and then open it a
>> bit later expecting to find the content it just wrote. If you
>> checkpoint-kill it in the interim, reboot (clearing out /tmp) and then
>> resume, then it will lose its tmp file. There's no explicit connection
>> between the process and its potential working set of files.
> I respectfully disagree. The number one prerequisite for
> checkpoint/restart is isolation. Xen just happens to get this for free.
(I don't have my Xen hat on at all for this thread.)
> So, instead of saying that there's no explicit connection between the
> process and its working set, ask yourself how we make a connection.
> In this case, we can do it with a filesystem (mount) namespace. Each
> container that we might want to checkpoint must have its writable
> filesystems contained to a private set that are not shared with other
> containers. Things like union mounts would help here, but aren't
> necessarily required. They just make it more efficient.
We were dealing with checkpointing random sets of processes, and that
posed all sorts of problems. Filesystem namespace was one, the pid
namespace was another. Doing checkpointing at the container-level
granularity definitely solves a lot of problems.
>>> Is there anything specific you are thinking of that particularly worries
>>> you? I could write pages on the list you have there.
>> No, that's the problem; it all worries me. It's a big problem space.
> It's almost as big of a problem as trying to virtualize entire machines
> and expecting them to run as fast as native. :)
No, it's much harder. Hardware is relatively simple and immutable
compared to kernel and process state ;)
> Cool! I didn't know you guys did the IRIX implementation. I'm sure you
> guys got a lot farther than any of us are. Did you guys ever write any
> papers or anything on it? I'd be interested in more information.
Yeah, there was a paper, but it looks like the internet has lost it. It
mention of the paper.
More information about the Containers