On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 09:37 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 10:29 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > I think the perceived need for it comes, as above, from the pure > > checkpoint-a-whole-container-only view. So long as you will > > checkpoint/restore a whole container, then you'll end up doing > > something requiring privilege anyway. But that is not all of > > the use cases. > > Yeah, there are certainly a lot of shades of gray here. I've been > talking to some HPC guys in the last couple of days. They certainly > have a need for checkpoint/restart, but much less of a need for doing > entire containers. We'd be uncomfortable running partial checkpoints. We'd much rather have slurm spawn off a container and just checkpoint that. Who knows what users code spawns off other processes... Kevin > > It also occurs to me that we have the potential to pull some > long-out-of-tree users back in. VMADump users, for instance: > > http://bproc.sourceforge.net/c268.html > > If we could do *just* a selective checkpoint of a single process's VMAs, > the bproc users could probably use sys_checkpoint() in some way. That's > *way* less than an entire container, but it would be really useful to > some people. > > -- Dave > > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
