>> *) process migration is more flexible and more transparent than an explicit
>> checkpoint / restart mechanism.
>
>Nonsense. You can implement process migration by using
>checkpoint/restart, but there's no way you can use process migration
>to implement checkpoint/restarting.
Why would you want checkpoint/restart if you had transparent process
migration? Checkpoint/restart requires work on the part of the application
programmer, while transparent process migration does notbecause it is done
by the kernel).
I was not concerned with theoretical debates about the relative powers of
some OS mechanisms, but if you had read a bit further of what I had written
then you might have seen this:
"Now we come to more practical points: It may be possible to simulate the
"BAD" mechanisms with the "GOOD" ones (actually, some one implementing the
"BAD" mechanisms inside the operating system might very well do so, as the
"GOOD" ones are more primitive), but I am not sure if it is a good idea
to let application programmers be faced by such issues. One should remember
that application programmers have other things to worry about (like the
problems that their work is supposed to solve in the first place)"
Think twice before making knee-jerk reactions and describing someone else's
comments as "nonsense".
-Kamran Karimi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu