Quoting Oren Laadan ([email protected]): > > > Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Oren Laadan ([email protected]): > >> > >> Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > >>> Oren Laadan [[email protected]] wrote: > >>> | > >>> | > >>> | Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > >>> | > I have a usage question on the 'restart' (formerly mktree) program. > >>> | > > >>> | > In the following container c/r case: > >>> | > > >>> | > - create a container > >>> | > - log in to the container, > >>> | > - restore filesystem(s) from snapshot > >>> | > - restart application from checkpoint > >>> | > >>> | FWIW, I'd expect that future versions of 'restart' will be capable > >>> | of doing this entire setup, (filesystem(s) included), as it matures. > >>> | > >>> | Note that this use case that you suggest will only work to restart > >>> | subtrees; it is unsuitable for full containers (with pids) because > >>> | the pid of init (1) will already be in use. > >>> > >>> True. But if originally the application was started as: > >>> > >>> Create container > >>> Login to contaienr > >> Actually, I'm not sure what you mean by "login to container" ? > > > > I assume he was thinking of a system container created with liblxc > > or libvirt, and literally logging in on its console or over ssh. > > This is exactly my point: > > * If you checkpoint full container, you get the sshd (and init) as > well, so you can't restore into an "existing" container, but create > a new one. > > * If you checkpoint subtree, you will miss orphans, and you will > give up leak-detection. > > I'd assume most users of this scenarios will prefer full container.
Yup, I think we are agreed. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
