User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account



Posted Nov 19, 2009 18:39 UTC (Thu) by dmag (guest, #17775)
In reply to: eclone() by MarkWilliamson
Parent article: eclone()

I'm with Linus on this one. He complained that "checkpoint/restart" will only work with a small subset of programs anyway. Everything from TCP connections to open files are always going to be problematic. So why not put a little bit of the burden on the process itself (to deal with new PIDs), instead of trying to complicate the kernel?

(Log in to post comments)

eclone() / containers

Posted Nov 20, 2009 9:45 UTC (Fri) by nicollet (subscriber, #37185) [Link]

Because we can't rewrite all the userland apps to be container aware. I think containers are the right way to go. Hypervisors are a way to say: "our OS can't use all the horsepower, let's put several hosts on the same physical machine".

Containers might also help to migrate virtual machines from one physical host to the other very fast, by tuning the VM subsystem. Today any page can be in the RAM or Swapped. During a container migration, we can add a third level: "on this host". That way if you want to move a 1 GB vserver/container, you wouldn't need to transfer the whole data to begin executing code.
It would help to reduce the TCP latency problem IMHO.

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds