On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 07:30:16PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote: > 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 How do you restore struct task_struct::did_exec ? _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
