From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <54cb7fe5b1491ba32b97d88bb4cd8733@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:55:12 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <13426df10904171939l5e9fd9ccu645c1f125e1973f6@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 - the next 20 years
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e532af38-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> the original condor just forwarded system calls back to the node it
> was started from. Thus all system calls were done in the context of
> the originating node and user.

Not much good if you're migrating because the node's gone down.  What
happens then?  Sorry to ask, RTFM seems a bit beyond my ken, right
now.

Also, that gives you a single level of checkpoint, in fact, I'd call
that strictly migration, C/R should allow a history of checkpoints,
each of which can be restarted.  Might not be possible, of course,
unless one defines the underlying platform with new properties
specially designed for C/R (and migration).  Hence my insistence that
Plan 9 is a better platform than other OSes in common use.  The
hardware may need to be adjusted too, but that's where Inferno EMU
will come to the rescue :-)

++L