From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 12 21:37:17 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1B8316A4CE for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:37:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (Odin.AC.HMC.Edu [134.173.32.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 715A443D58 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:37:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brdavis@odin.ac.hmc.edu) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0CLe2Fh023244; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:40:02 -0800 Received: (from brdavis@localhost) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0/Submit) id j0CLe2s3023243; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:40:02 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:40:02 -0800 From: Brooks Davis To: Siddharth Aggarwal Message-ID: <20050112214002.GA21038@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=8.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on odin.ac.hmc.edu cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: process checkpoint restore facility now in DragonFly BSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:37:17 -0000 --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:17:38PM -0700, Siddharth Aggarwal wrote: >=20 > I am responding to a post back in Oct 2003 when the checkpointing feature > was announced for DragonFly. I have been doing some research on this, and > have seen some projects that use Xen VMM to achieve checkpoints of guest > OSes. >=20 > So I was looking for inputs from people as to what everyone feels about > checkpointing, whether it should be done at the physical machine level or > VM level. Pros and Cons of each approach, if any further development was > done on DragonFly for checkpoint since then and if it was stopped, why? > Are there serious limitations to checkpointing a physical machine? >=20 > Sorry for such a vague posting, but I thought this would be a good > platform to get some feedback. The DragonFly lists would be the logical place to discuss DragonFly features. =46rom my perspective as a scientific computing user, VM level checkpointing is it little use since I get the overhead of the VM and I can't easily do the application level checkpointing required to checkpoing distributed programs. There are probably a number of places where it is useful in scientific computing, but I don't find it to be all that intresting. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFB5ZkpXY6L6fI4GtQRAlG9AJwKKz6OGw5jC8VzAZ1165T2BTbFXQCZAemr F540VRaEwrmV84qWnDAHlsA= =vSbz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB--