> -----Original Message----- > From: Oren Laadan [mailto:orenl@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:18 AM > To: Matt Helsley > Cc: Will Huang; containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: kernel based checkpoint/restart: about X windows application > checkpoint and restart support. > > > > Matt Helsley wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:02:43AM -0400, Oren Laadan wrote: > >> > >> Matt Helsley wrote: > >>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:51:32AM +0800, Will Huang wrote: > >>>> Dear All, > >>>> > >>>> Did the Kernel based checkpoint/restart patch support X > windows > >>>> application such as firefox? > >>> No, and I think it may be a long time before that happens. > >> In short: not yet, but we're getting closer. > >> > > > > <snip> (lots of good background) > > > >> Now back to your question: X applications cannot be checkpointed > >> standalone (unless, of course, X windows is modified for that). > >> Instead, one must checkpoint the entire user session, including > >> the X server itself. > >> > >> The main problem is that the X server is "talking" to the bare > >> hardware, and the task of recording the specific hardware state > >> and restoring it later is daunting, and becomes impossible if the > >> session is to be restarted on different hardware. > >> > >> The solution is to not run the regular X server. Instead, start > >> a virtual X server, such as VNC, and run the user session in it. > >> The main difference is that VNC server does not directly use any > >> hardware resources, so it is not tied to specific hardware state. > >> From the user's point of view - this setup is transparent with > >> suitable use of a VNC client. > > > > VNC is all well and good but it's hardly the norm for local > > desktops to run under an X server with a VNC display. That said, > > VNC support is much closer than any of my hare-brained ideas so.. > > There is a lot of work on server/client split of the X server > (of which VNC is one), and also work on embedding one display > manager within another (e.g. nested X, and also similar ideas > done with embedding a VM window in the desktop as a regular > window etc). > > So eventually, I believe, embedding a (virtualized) X server in > an outside X server and running the entire desktop in a container > will eventually be possible in a manner transparent to the user. > > And this is much more likely than checkpoint the standard X > server including all it's hardware related state... > > Changing the norm starts now :) > > Oren. Yes, the difference between hardware will make the task crazy. I think the X server should be modified to support the X based application c/r. This will make the problem a little easy. Yours sincerely, Will Huang, DeviceVM, Inc. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
