From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <13426df10904171515g571f7781x38ca528cfbce1149@mail.gmail.com> References: <13426df10904171515g571f7781x38ca528cfbce1149@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:35:57 -0400 Message-ID: <3aaafc130904171535j4ecac3b4t64251cb52ba81b71@mail.gmail.com> From: "J.R. Mauro" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 - the next 20 years Topicbox-Message-UUID: e4b74f96-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 6:15 PM, ron minnich wrote: > if you want to look at checkpointing, it's worth going back to look at > Condor, because they made it really work. There are a few interesting > issues that you need to get right. You can't make it 50% of the way > there; that's not useful. You have to hit all the bits -- open /tmp > files, sockets, all of it. It's easy to get about 90% of it but the > last bits are a real headache. Nothing that's come along since has > really done the job (although various efforts claim to, you have to > read the fine print). > > ron > > Amen. Linux is currently having a seriously hard time getting C/R working properly, just because of the issues you mention. The second you mix in non-local resources, things get pear-shaped. Unfortunately, even if it does work, it will probably not have the kind of nice Plan 9-ish semantics I can envision it having.