At Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:25:53 -0500, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 15:02 +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > I definitely agree that there is a range of options between > > persistence and non-persistence. Well, in fact there is exactly one > > third option, and that is orthogonal persistence, but of course you > > can vary the extent on which the persistence attribute applies. > > Just to make sure that we are having the same conversation, I am aware > of only three foundational persistence mechanisms: > > 1. Non-persistence > 2. Per-process persistence, which can be aggregated into sessions by > persisting multiple processes as a group. > 3. Machine-wide persistence > > Is there a fourth mechanism that I am missing? > > The performance of per-process persistence is bad, and the complexity is > very high.
What I meant with the "third option" is your number 2. The "varying degree" would be the number of processes you checkpoint. So, I think we agree. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
