Matt Helsley wrote: > > That said, if the intent is to allow the restore to be done on > > another node with a "similar" filesystem (e.g. created by rsync/node > > image), instead of having a coherent distributed filesystem on all > > of the nodes then the filename makes sense. > > Yes, this is the intent. I would worry about programs which are using files which have been deleted, renamed, or (very common) renamed-over by another process after being opened, as there's a good chance they will successfully open the wrong file after c/r, and corrupt state from then on. This can be avoided by ensuring every checkpointed application is specially "c/r aware", but that makes the feature a lot less attractive, as well as uncomfortably unsafe to use on arbitrary processes. Ideally, c/r would fail on some types of process (e.g. using sockets), but at least fail in a safe way that does not lead to quiet data corruption. -- Jamie _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
