Re: Remote fork() and Parallel Programming

Michael O'Reilly (michael@metal.iinet.net.au)
11 Jun 1998 09:15:32 +0800

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: David S. Miller: "Re: knfsd in recent 2.1.10x"
Previous message: Rob Hagopian: "Re: Speaking of SysRQ..."
In reply to: mshar@vax.ipm.ac.ir: "Re: Remote fork() and Parallel Programming"

mshar@vax.ipm.ac.ir writes:
> lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) wrote:
> >My personal take on these issues is:
> >
> > BAD GOOD
> > --- ----
> > remote fork() remote exec()
> > process migration checkpoint / restart
> > dynamic load balancing static load balancing across machines
> > across machines + dynamic load balancing within
> > (SMP) machines.
>
> The items listed under "BAD" are more powerful that the "GOOD"
> ones:
[ .. ]
> *) process migration is more flexible and more transparent than an explicit
> checkpoint / restart mechanism.

Nonsense. You can implement process migration by using
checkpoint/restart, but there's no way you can use process migration
to implement checkpoint/restarting.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

Next message: David S. Miller: "Re: knfsd in recent 2.1.10x"
Previous message: Rob Hagopian: "Re: Speaking of SysRQ..."
In reply to: mshar@vax.ipm.ac.ir: "Re: Remote fork() and Parallel Programming"