Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!brahms.udel.edu!gdtltr
From: gdtltr@brahms.udel.edu (root@research.bdi.com (Systems Research Supervisor))
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: process migration - status and availability
Message-ID: <20630@brahms.udel.edu>
Date: 20 Apr 91 16:27:15 GMT
References: <10422@pitt.UUCP> <1505@geovision.gvc.com>
Organization: Brain Dead Innovations, Inc. (BDI)
Lines: 25

In article <1505@geovision.gvc.com> gd@geovision.gvc.com (Gord Deinstadt) writes:
=>In article <10422@pitt.UUCP> jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) writes:
=>>Why isn't process migration common?
=>
=>Several replies suggested that it may not be all that useful.  I can
=>think of a use: fault-tolerant systems.  Though you need more than
=>just process migration, it would be an interesting way to start.

   How do you propose to migrate a process of a node that has failed? I
suppose if you had a fairly recent checkpoint for the process you could
restart it, but you have to deal with any I/O the process has performed
between the checkpoint and the failure. In any case, I don't think this
is process migration, per se, but it is related.

                                        Gary Duzan
                                        Time  Lord
                                    Third Regeneration



-- 
                            gdtltr@brahms.udel.edu
   _o_                      ----------------------                        _o_
 [|o o|]   Two CPU's are better than one; N CPU's would be real nice.   [|o o|]
  |_o_|           Disclaimer: I AM Brain Dead Innovations, Inc.          |_o_|