Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch

[Dan Smith <danms@us.ibm.com>]

GC> As before, Oren, let's have that phone discussion so that we can
GC> preprocess a lot of this, instead of acting like the the three
GC> blind men and the elephant.  I will _tell you_ the strengths and
GC> weaknesses of DMTCP on the phone, instead of you having to guess
GC> at them here on LKML.  And of course, I hope you will be similarly
GC> frank about Linux C/R on the phone.

I want to be in on that discussion too, as do a lot of other people
here.  However, I doubt we'll all be able to find a common spot on our
collective schedules, nor would that conversation be archived for
posterity.  I think sticking to LKML is the right (and time-tested)
approach.

OL> Linux-cr can do live migration - e.g. VDI, move the desktop - in
OL> which case skype's sockets' network stacks are reconstructed,
OL> transparently to both skype (local apps) and the peer (remote
OL> apps).  Then, at the destination host and skype continues to work.

GC> That's a really cool thing to do, and it's definitely not part of
GC> what DMTCP does.  It might be possible to do userland live
GC> migration, but it's definitely not part of our current scope.

How would you go about doing that in userland?  With the current
linux-cr implementation, I can move something like sshd or sendmail
from one machine to another without a remote (connected) client
noticing anything more than a bit of delay during the move.

I think that saving and restoring the state of a TCP connection from
userland is probably a good example of a case where it makes sense to
have it as part of a C/R function, but not necessarily exposed in /sys
or /proc somewhere.  Unless it can be argued that doing so is not
useful, I think that's a good talking point for discussing the kernel
vs. user approach, no?

-- 
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center