Efficient Live Migration of Linux Containers

  • Radostin Stoyanov
  • Martin J. KollingbaumEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11203)


In recent years, operating system level virtualization has grown in popularity due to its capability to isolate multiple userspace environments and to allow for their co-existence within a single OS kernel instance. Checkpoint-restore in Userspace (CRIU) is a tool that allows to live migrate a hierarchy of processes – a container – between two physical computers. However, the live migration may cause significant delays when the applications running inside a container modify large amounts of memory faster than a container can be transferred over the network to a remote host. In this paper, we propose a novel approach for live migration of containers to address this issue by utilizing a recently published CRIU feature, the so-called “image cache/proxy”. This feature allows for better total migration time and down time of the container applications that are migrated by avoiding the use of secondary storage.


Linux containers CRIU Live migration Cloud computing 


  1. 1.
    Memory changes tracking - CRIU documentation.
  2. 2.
    Userfaultfd - CRIU documentation.
  3. 3.
    CRIU - Checkpoint/Restore in User Space, October 2016.
  4. 4.
    CRIU (2018).
  5. 5.
    CRIU disk-less migration (2018).
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Bruno, R., Ferreira, P.: ALMA: GC-assisted JVM live migration for java server applications. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Middleware Conference, p. 5. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark, C., et al.: Live migration of virtual machines. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Symposium on Networked Systems Design & Implementation-Volume 2, pp. 273–286. USENIX Association (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Documentation, O.: Checkpointing and live migration (2018).
  11. 11.
    Emelyanov, P.: System and method for joining containers running on multiple nodes of a cluster.
  12. 12.
    Emelyanov, P.: Ability to monitor task memory changes, April 2013.
  13. 13.
    Emelyanov, P.: Soft-Dirty PTEs - Linux Kernel Documentation, April 2013.
  14. 14.
    Hacking, S., Hudzia, B.: Improving the live migration process of large enterprise applications. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Virtualization Technologies in Distributed Computing, pp. 51–58. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hines, M.R., Deshpande, U., Gopalan, K.: Post-copy live migration of virtual machines. ACM SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 43(3), 14–26 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laadan, O., Nieh, J.: Transparent checkpoint-restart of multiple processes on commodity operating systems. In: 2007 USENIX Annual Technical Conference on Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference, ATC 2007, pp. 25:1–25:14. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2007).
  17. 17.
    Lei, Z., Sun, E., Chen, S., Wu, J., Shen, W.: A novel hybrid-copy algorithm for live migration of virtual machine. Future Internet 9(3), 37 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Milojičić, D.S., Douglis, F., Paindaveine, Y., Wheeler, R., Zhou, S.: Process migration. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 32(3), 241–299 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reber, A.: Combining pre-copy and post-copy migration, October 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations