Gene Cooperman [gene@xxxxxxxxxxx] wrote: | > RELIABILITY checkpoint w/ single syscall; non-atomic, cannot find leaks | > atomic operation. guaranteed to determine restartability | > restartability for containers | | My understanding is that the guarantees apply for Linux containers, but not | for a tree of processes. Does this imply that linux-cr would have some | of the same reliability issues as DMTCP for a tree of processes? (I mean | the question sincerely, and am not intending to be rude.) In any case, | won't DMTCP and Linux C/R have to handle orthogonal reliability issues | such as external database, time virtualization, and other examples | from our previous post? Yes if the user attempts to checkpoint a partial container (what we refer to process subtree) or fails to snapshot/restore filesystem there could be leaks that we cannot detect. But one guarantee we are trying to provide is that if the user checkpoints a _complete_ container, then we will detect a leak if one exists. Is there a way to establish a set of constraints (eg: run application in a container, snapshot/restore filesystem) and then provide leak detection with a pure userpsace implementation ? Sukadev _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
