On 23:24, Fri 31 Mar 06, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 10:54:34PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> My concern with "checkpointing", as it's described so far, is that it
> really only permits you one level of checkpointing, for a lot of work.  
> We: 1) double the number of counters, 2) incriment these extra counters
> (ok, this isn't so bad, and could be adjusted with some implementation
> magic so that you only incriment one counter), 3) teach almost all
> counter-using programs about these new counters, and 4) teach
> administrators about all these new counters. And we only get one
> checkpoint.

Well, you wouldn't really be incrementing these other counters at all,
merely copying them so no magic implementation would really be needed
from how I see it.

-- 
		Liam J. Foy
		<liamfoy@sepulcrum.org>
		http://www.bsdportal.org