Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932090AbWBKCiW (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:38:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932094AbWBKCiW (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:38:22 -0500 Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:33694 "EHLO mail.utsl.gen.nz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932090AbWBKCiW (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:38:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: swsusp done by migration (was Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] Virtualization/containers: startup) From: Sam Vilain To: Vasily Averin Cc: devel@openvz.org, Kyle Moffett , Andrew Morton , Kirill Korotaev , frankeh@watson.ibm.com, Andrey Savochkin , Rik van Riel , greg@kroah.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linus Torvalds , "Eric W. Biederman" , Pavel Machek , Alexey Kuznetsov , serue@us.ibm.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, arjan@infradead.org In-Reply-To: <43EC317C.9090101@sw.ru> References: <43E38BD1.4070707@openvz.org> <43E3915A.2080000@sw.ru> <43E71018.8010104@sw.ru> <1139243874.6189.71.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060208215412.GD2353@ucw.cz> <7CCC1159-BF55-4961-BC24-A759F893D43F@mac.com> <43EC170C.6090807@vilain.net> <43EC317C.9090101@sw.ru> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:38:18 +1300 Message-Id: <1139625499.12123.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1464 Lines: 30 On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 09:23 +0300, Vasily Averin wrote: > >> > >> I can see another extension to this functionality. With appropriate > >> changes it might also be possible to have a container exist across > >> multiple computers using some cluster code for synchronization and > >> fencing. The outermost container would be the system boot container, > >> and multiple inner containers would use some sort of network- > >> container-aware cluster filesystem to spread multiple vservers across > >> multiple servers, distributing CPU and network load appropriately. > >> > > Yeah. If you fudged/virtualised /dev/random, the system clock, etc you > > could even have Tandem-style transparent High Availability. > > > Could you please explain, why you want to virtualize /dev/random? When checkpointing it is important to preserve all state. If you are doing transparent highly available computing, you need to make sure all system calls get the same answers in the clones. So you would need to virtualise the entropy pool. There are likely to be dozens of other quite hard problems in the way first. Like I said, wishful thinking :-). Sam. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/