I don't know where you get the idea that you can't just pretend you're running in RAM forever. If you look at the main goal of EROS you can see that is the point.

Check out http://wiki.c2.com/?TransparentPersistence

From the EROS website which specifically described the checkpointing mechanism as well as gives a short description of the journalling support.

If you just pretend you're running in RAM, and the system crashes, you will lose the data between the crash point and the last checkpoint unless you have explicitly used the journalling mechanism. Often that is acceptable. E.g. since you're restoring the program at the same point in time, if the changes are entirely based on data that were in the system at the point of the last checkpoint, it will just redo the work to calculate the changes.

But if there are side-effects, that is often not going to be acceptable. E.g. database updates that the system has said were committed will suddenly disappear.

To solve that, EROS has a journalling mechanism to allow you to give guarantees about specific data that changes in between checkpoints, but that requires applications to explicitly use it to tell the OS what needs to be saved when so that the application can guarantee that a given piece of data has been durably recorded when it promises a client it has been recorded, and that the writes get correctly ordered.

That's a sensible compromise - if you do it right, it only needs to touch the "boundaries" where the system does IO.

> If you just pretend you're running in RAM, and the system crashes, you will lose the data between the crash point and the last checkpoint unless you have explicitly used the journalling mechanism

> But if there are side-effects, that is often not going to be acceptable. E.g. database updates that the system has said were committed will suddenly disappear.

Yes, not every system will forever be recoverable. You can definetly crash at just the right moment to ruin your year. I'd still like the other safety constraints that this provides because I still think that even if N (where N is the number of threads available on the CPU) processes have a chance of being corrupted we're still going to be saving the rest of the processes on the system that aren't currently transacting with one another.

I absolutely like many of the ideas behind EROS, including checkpointing, though I think it does have some issues. E.g. we often treat reboots as a "clear all state to recover from weird situations", and so we still need something like that.

The point is more that it doesn't mean you can just treat things like we do RAM now. It ends up being closer to how you'd work in apps that use mmap'd files to back persistent data.

The capabilities model was interesting too.

I think my biggest problem with a persistence model like that, though, is that I suspect it would encourage not thinking seriously about state, and ideally I'd prefer a system where state is minimized. E.g. compare EROS with the virtual opposite: Android, for example, where apps might find themselves killed anytime. Some apps handle it poorly and go through lengthy initialisation processes again when restarted, but many maintain the illusion of being fully presistent to the extent that users can rarely tell if they've started from scratch or not.

I'd love to see more work into allowing the illusion of a persistent process with little developer effort, though. Perhaps OS-level per application checkpointing support that the application can have control over (allowing the app to control exactly what gets checkpointed, and when to ditch the checkpointed state to reinitialise). So "cleanup" can occur by restarting processes transparently for users while hopefully providing most of the benefits of persisting state.

Perhaps coupled with OS-level checkpointing of the information required to bring said "virtually-persistent" apps back up in the same state after a reboot.