...
>
>> Which is why using something like the "lxd provider" would be a more
>> natural use case, but according to James the sticking point is having to
>> set up a controller in the first place. So "--to lxd:0" is easier for them
>> to think about than setting up a provider and letting it decid
It always comes back to Juju being a tool pushing for best practice for
operations. It's hard for a hosted service to make any service promises
when things are running on personal laptops and such. It's all do-able, but
there's some form of what is the best practice thing to do. The controller
affi
This raises the question: why do we need a provider -> controller affinity
at all?
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Nicholas Skaggs <
nicholas.ska...@canonical.com> wrote:
> On 06/03/2017 02:56 AM, John Meinel wrote:
>
>> You can add a manually provisioned machine to any model, as long as there
>
On 06/03/2017 02:56 AM, John Meinel wrote:
You can add a manually provisioned machine to any model, as long as
there is connectivity from the machine to the controller. Now, I would
have thought initial setup was initiated by the Controller, but its
possible that initial setup is actually initi
One big reason this has been such a gem for me, is because once a user adds
his vm to a model, I can deploy/manage/admin the application for them
remotely on their local vm. This is huge when on-boarding new users,
because it helps negate all the things someone foreign to Juju might
encounter when
@john, @andrew thanks for the details here
On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Andrew Wilkins <
andrew.wilk...@canonical.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 2:56 PM John Meinel wrote:
>
>> You can add a manually provisioned machine to any model, as long as there
>> is connectivity from the machine
On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 2:56 PM John Meinel wrote:
> You can add a manually provisioned machine to any model, as long as there
> is connectivity from the machine to the controller. Now, I would have
> thought initial setup was initiated by the Controller, but its possible
> that initial setup is a
You can add a manually provisioned machine to any model, as long as there
is connectivity from the machine to the controller. Now, I would have
thought initial setup was initiated by the Controller, but its possible
that initial setup is actually initiated from the client.
Once initial setup is co
The communication is from the agent to controller only from my
understanding. This is what allows a user to provision juju deployed
infrastructure behind any nat gateway, and for lxd deploys to work on
providers without juju networking support for containers (where the
containers get the lxdbr0 nat
I think the primary advantage being less clutter to the end user. The
difference between the end user have to bootstrap and control things from
inside the vm vs from their host. For some reason this small change made some
of my users who were previously not really catching on, far more apt to ju
Interesting. I wouldn't have thought to use a manually added machine to use
JAAS to deploy applications to your local virtualbox. Is there a reason
this is easier than just "juju bootstrap lxd" from inside the VM?
I suppose our default lxd provider puts the new containers on a NAT bridge,
though y
11 matches
Mail list logo
