Hi Stéphane, On 05/30/13 17:39, Stéphane Graber wrote: > > If we were to use groups for everything, we'd end up having to reserve > "disabled", "autostart", "last-state". > > And then make those 3 conflict so that a container couldn't be in more > than one of those at any given time. > > This seems rather complicated and non-obvious for our users, so I'd > rather keep things simple and have separate lxc.start.auto and > lxc.start.disabled config entries. >
Using attributes instead of group names is fine with me. > > lxc-stop sends SIGKILL by default which is usually instantaneous, if > it's not, that's because of I/O wait on the kernel side which > parallelization will just make worse. > I thought this default has been changed recently, didn't it? According to the current man page lxc-stop sends SIGPWR to the container, telling init to enter run level 0, to wait for the childs, and then to exit. > > I'm not planning on doing anything more clever than simply doing serial > start of the containers, waiting for lxc.start.delay if it's present. > Using a serial startup procedure for the containers is fine with me. My major concern was about lxc-stop. Surely parallel execution would introduce much more complexity, and most of the users wouldn't notice the difference. I completely agree that things should be kept simple. Many thanx Harri ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap2 _______________________________________________ Lxc-devel mailing list Lxc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-devel
