On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 18:33 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > I think the main question is: will we ever find ourselves in the > future saying that "C/R sucks, nobody but a small minority uses > it, wish we had never merged it"? I think the likelyhood of that > is very low. I think the current OpenVZ stuff already looks very We've been maintaining for some years now a C/R middleware with only a few hooks in the kernel. Our strategy is to leverage existing kernel paths as they do most of the work right. Most of the checkpoint is performed from userspace, using regular syscalls in a signal handler or /proc parsing. Restart is a bit trickier and needs some kernel support to bypass syscall checks and enforce a specific id for a resource. At the end, we support C/R and live migration of networking apps (websphere application server for example). >From our experience, we can tell: Pros: mostly not-so-tricky userland code, independent from kernel internals Cons: sub-optimal for some resources -- Gregory Kurz gkurz@xxxxxxxxxx Software Engineer @ IBM/Meiosys http://www.ibm.com Tel +33 (0)534 638 479 Fax +33 (0)561 400 420 "Anarchy is about taking complete responsibility for yourself." Alan Moore. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
