Re: "partial" container checkpoint

[Paul Menage]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 certainly like the ability to migrate jobs that might be in their
own pid namespace, but not in their own network/IPC/user/etc
namespaces.

Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/