On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 13:30 -0600, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 10:11 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: ... > > * Filesystem state > > * contents of files > > * mount tree for individual processes > > * flock > > * threads and sessions > > * CPU and NUMA affinity > > * sys_remap_file_pages() > > I think the real questions is: where are the dragons hiding? Some of > these are known to be hard. And some of them are critical checkpointing > typical applications. If you have plans or theories for implementing all > of the above, then great. But this list doesn't really give any sense of > whether we should be scared of what lurks behind those doors. This is probably a better question for people like Pavel, Alexey and Cedric to answer. > Some of these things we probably don't have to care too much about. For > instance, contents of files - these can legitimately change for a > running process. Open TCP/IP sockets can legitimately get reset as well. > But others are a bigger deal. Legitimately, yes. But, practically, these are things that we need to handle because we want to make any checkpoint/restart as transparent as possible. Resetting people's network connections is not exactly illegal but not very nice or transparent either. > Also, what happens if I checkpoint a process in 2.6.30 and restore it in > 2.6.31 which has an expanded idea of what should be restored? Do your > file formats handle this sort of forward compatibility or am I > restricted to one kernel? In general, you're restricted to one kernel. But, people have mentioned that, if the formats change, we should be able to write in-userspace converters for the checkpoint files. -- Dave _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
