[Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch
serge.hallyn at canonical.com
Thu Nov 18 19:54:03 PST 2010
Quoting Tejun Heo (tj at kernel.org):
> * And, most of all, there are userland implementation and
> virtualization, making the benefit to overhead ratio completely off.
> Userland implementation _already_ achieves most of what's necessary
Guess I'll just be offensive here and say, straight-out: I don't
believe it. Can I see the userspace implementation of c/r?
If it's as good as the kernel level c/r, then aweseome - we don't
need the kernel patches.
If it's not as good, then the thing is, we're not drawing arbitrary
lines saying "is this good enough", rather we want completely
reliable and transparent c/r. IOW, the running task and the other
end can't tell that a migration happened, and, if checkpoint says
it worked, then restart must succeed.
More information about the Containers