[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49AE3BF6.2010600@turknet.net.tr>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:29:42 +0200
From: Tarkan Erimer <tarkan.erimer@...knet.net.tr>
To: David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Failover Kernel
On 03/03/2009 05:29 AM, David Newall wrote:
> It sounds like you want everything to just continue running. I don't
>
Yes, exactly. Backup kernel will take control when a crush occured
without need a reboot or halt.
> see how that can be done. All of those in-kernel tables and structures
> would need to be migrated, and it follows, because there was a crash,
> that any of them might have been corrupted. Worse, you want this to
> save you when you try running a new kernel which crashes, and being a
> new kernel, it follows that any of those structures could be different;
> it might not be possible to create equivalent structures for different
> kernel versions.
>
>
Yes, that's right and it's the first thing needed to overcome. Maybe, it
could be implemented like this :
- Primary kernel could be 2.6.x or 2.6.x.y (2.6.28 or 2.6.28.1)
- Backup kernel could be one of these .y fix releases only: Like 2.6.28.5
So; when they're from the same version, it will prevent kernel API and
structure changes.
For resuming by backup kernel: The primary kernel could write a journal
about the needed things for backup to resume. Like process IDs, memory
and process situations etc. The same manner as the Journalled File
Systems did (they write a journal what they did to recover/resume at
crash/disaster time).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists