On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 09:50:28AM -0500, Stéphane Graber wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 07:32:34AM -0500, Tycho Andersen wrote: > > Hi Stéphane, > > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:40:15PM -0500, Stéphane Graber wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:14:03PM -0500, Tycho Andersen wrote: > > > > This patch adds support for checkpointing and restoring containers via > > > > CRIU. > > > > It adds two api calls, ->checkpoint and ->restore, which are wrappers > > > > around > > > > the CRIU CLI. CRIU has an RPC API, but reasons for preferring exec() are > > > > discussed in [1]. > > > > > > > > To checkpoint, users specify a directory to dump the container metadata > > > > (CRIU > > > > dump files, plus some additional information about veth pairs and which > > > > bridges they are attached to) into this directory. On restore, this > > > > information is read out of the directory, a CRIU command line is > > > > constructed, > > > > and CRIU is exec()d. CRIU uses the lxc-restore-net callback (which in > > > > turn > > > > inspects the image directory with the NIC data) to properly restore the > > > > network. > > > > > > > > This will only work with the current git master of CRIU; anything as of > > > > a152c843 should work. There is a known bug where containers which have > > > > been > > > > restored cannot be checkpointed [2]. > > > > > > > > [1]: http://lists.openvz.org/pipermail/criu/2014-July/015117.html > > > > [2]: http://lists.openvz.org/pipermail/criu/2014-August/015876.html > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for that work! > > > > > > Just one comment before I dive in a bit closer, I'd really rather we > > > just have one command, say lxc-checkpoint which does both the dumping > > > and the restarting rather than have the extremely confusing lxc-restart > > > (which to most user will sound like an equivalent to c->reboot(c). > > > > It is lxc-restore (vs. -restart), not sure if that changes your mind > > at all. > > Oops, should have read a bit more carefully :) > > It is a bit less confusin indeed, though restore may be confusing with > snapshot related functions maybe?
Yeah, I wondered about confusion between "snapshot" and "checkpoint" since (without the context) they both mean essentially the same thing. I don't mind renaming things, I just couldn't come up with a better name :) > > > > > Would you mind merging lxc-restart into lxc-checkpoint? > > > > Sure, what should it be called? I guess the CLI would be something > > like: > > > > lxc-foo checkpoint [checkpoint opts] > > lxc-foo restore [restore opts] > > So, I think we would have something like: > > lxc-checkpoint -n <container> [-D DIR] [-s] [-v] => checkpoint > lxc-checkpoint -n <container> -r [-D DIR] [-v] [-d] [-F] => restore > > So basically merging the two commands, then making the following options > conflict: > - -r with -s > - ! -r with -d and -F Sounds good, I will make the changes. Tycho > > > > ? > > > > Tycho > > _______________________________________________ > > lxc-devel mailing list > > lxc-devel@lists.linuxcontainers.org > > http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel > > -- > Stéphane Graber > Ubuntu developer > http://www.ubuntu.com > _______________________________________________ > lxc-devel mailing list > lxc-devel@lists.linuxcontainers.org > http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel _______________________________________________ lxc-devel mailing list lxc-devel@lists.linuxcontainers.org http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel
