Quoting Serge Hallyn (serge.hal...@ubuntu.com):
> Quoting Dwight Engen (dwight.en...@oracle.com):
> > On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:29:53 -0400
> > Dwight Engen wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 12:09:55 -0400
> > > S.Çağlar Onur wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Dwight,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I only observed
Hi Dwight,
Yes it only stuck during creating concurrent containers for me and
start/stop/freeze/unfreeze seems to work fine. If it helps I'm pretty sure
that it was working fine till last week (or I was so lucky not to hit by
this problem before). Go binding's test suite does lots of concurrent st
Quoting Dwight Engen (dwight.en...@oracle.com):
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:29:53 -0400
> Dwight Engen wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 12:09:55 -0400
> > S.Çağlar Onur wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Dwight,
> > >
> > > Yes, I only observed a hang so far but not this assertion (in fact I
> > > don't remembe
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:29:53 -0400
Dwight Engen wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 12:09:55 -0400
> S.Çağlar Onur wrote:
>
> > Hi Dwight,
> >
> > Yes, I only observed a hang so far but not this assertion (in fact I
> > don't remember ever seeing that). What I'm seeing is this;
>
> Okay, something f
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:44:34PM -0400, S.Çağlar Onur wrote:
> Hey Stéphane,
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:21:20PM -0400, S.Çağlar Onur wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: S.Çağlar Onur
> >
> > The loopback filtering was there so that all
Hey Stéphane,
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:21:20PM -0400, S.Çağlar Onur wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: S.Çağlar Onur
>
> The loopback filtering was there so that all the software using get_ips
> to wait for the container to be reachable would wo
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:21:20PM -0400, S.Çağlar Onur wrote:
> Signed-off-by: S.Çağlar Onur
The loopback filtering was there so that all the software using get_ips
to wait for the container to be reachable would work.
Your change will essentially force everyone to do two calls, one for all
inte
Hi,
Seems like "git send-mail" decided to send this without an explanation. So
here it is;
While implementing get_ips API for Go bindings I realized that function can
receive an interface name as a parameter. There was no way to find the
interface names from the container so this patch introduces
Signed-off-by: S.Çağlar Onur
---
src/lxc/lxccontainer.c | 119 +++--
src/lxc/lxccontainer.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/lxc/lxccontainer.c b/src/lxc/lxccontainer.c
index 79237df..14b6942 100644
--- a/src
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 12:09:55 -0400
S.Çağlar Onur wrote:
> Hi Dwight,
>
> Yes, I only observed a hang so far but not this assertion (in fact I
> don't remember ever seeing that). What I'm seeing is this;
Okay, something funny is going on, but I don't know what yet. That
assertion is coming from
Tony:
On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 00:20 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 15:23 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > All - Especially Tony Su,
>
> > Couple of people where I work thought you couldn't do what I was trying
> > to do, that it was "impossible". Oh well. Looks l
Branch: refs/heads/staging
Home: https://github.com/lxc/lxc
Commit: 84bce17b8bc5c69e8dce03457a5f7859e0b46940
https://github.com/lxc/lxc/commit/84bce17b8bc5c69e8dce03457a5f7859e0b46940
Author: Serge Hallyn
Date: 2013-09-13 (Fri, 13 Sep 2013)
Changed paths:
M templates/lxc
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:43:56PM -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Otherwise user-namespace containers will hang on mountall.
>
> Signed-off-by: Serge Hallyn
Acked-by: Stéphane Graber
I'll cherry-pick that in the Ubuntu package.
> ---
> templates/lxc-ubuntu-cloud.in | 1 +
> templates/lxc-ubunt
Otherwise user-namespace containers will hang on mountall.
Signed-off-by: Serge Hallyn
---
templates/lxc-ubuntu-cloud.in | 1 +
templates/lxc-ubuntu.in | 1 +
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/templates/lxc-ubuntu-cloud.in b/templates/lxc-ubuntu-cloud.in
index 0abc932..b024de8
Branch: refs/heads/staging
Home: https://github.com/lxc/lxc
Commit: b130964dd7faf19abc7afde7eebe7905a0fe8661
https://github.com/lxc/lxc/commit/b130964dd7faf19abc7afde7eebe7905a0fe8661
Author: S.Çağlar Onur
Date: 2013-09-13 (Fri, 13 Sep 2013)
Changed paths:
M src/tests/co
Quoting S.Çağlar Onur (cag...@10ur.org):
> Signed-off-by: S.Çağlar Onur
Acked-by: Serge E. Hallyn
thanks, applied.
> ---
> src/tests/concurrent.c | 10 +-
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/tests/concurrent.c b/src/tests/concurrent.c
> index 41c171b
Signed-off-by: S.Çağlar Onur
---
src/tests/concurrent.c | 10 +-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/tests/concurrent.c b/src/tests/concurrent.c
index 41c171b..7faf34c 100644
--- a/src/tests/concurrent.c
+++ b/src/tests/concurrent.c
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ void * co
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 05:11:37PM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> > Concur on the revert.
> >
> > What is really gained by deleting that file? I agree with the basic
> > idea of moving and renaming that file to hold the mount open but, are
> > we
> > really that worried that some
Hi Dwight,
Yes, I only observed a hang so far but not this assertion (in fact I don't
remember ever seeing that). What I'm seeing is this;
* lxc-test-concurrent get stuck
[caglar@qgq:~] sudo lxc-test-concurrent
Executing (create) for 5 containers...
* ps auwxf shows this (so no rsync etc. runni
Hi there,
> Concur on the revert.
>
> What is really gained by deleting that file? I agree with the basic
> idea of moving and renaming that file to hold the mount open but, are
> we
> really that worried that someone will inadvertently delete that file?
> It shouldn't be a security issue and I
On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 12:18 -0400, Stéphane Graber wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 05:11:37PM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > > Concur on the revert.
> > >
> > > What is really gained by deleting that file? I agree with the basic
> > > idea of moving and renaming that file
Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 07:56 -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Jäkel, Guido (g.jae...@dnb.de):
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I'm late but I just want to mention that I expect that all this kind
> > of "unlinking" on a NFS will show up as a stale N
On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 10:28 -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> > On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 07:56 -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > > Quoting Jäkel, Guido (g.jae...@dnb.de):
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I'm late but I just want to mention that I expect that
On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 07:56 -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Jäkel, Guido (g.jae...@dnb.de):
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm late but I just want to mention that I expect that all this kind
> of "unlinking" on a NFS will show up as a stale NFS handle, i.e. a
> still visible hidden directory entry (.nf
Hey Tony!
I've kept meaning to revisit this and answer your question...
On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 10:23 -0700, Tony Su wrote:
> Thx for the thoughts, Michael...
>
> Would like to know specifically what you believe is incompatible
> running 0.8.0 with systemd.
Ok... Here are the things we know ab
Hi Çağlar
I was trying out your new test (with one small change, I made it use
busybox instead of ubuntu during the creates since busybox is a bit
simpler). I put it in a while true shell loop, and it goes for a few
iterations but then the error I get is:
[...]
Executing (create) for 5 containers
Quoting Jäkel, Guido (g.jae...@dnb.de):
> Hello,
>
> I'm late but I just want to mention that I expect that all this kind of
> "unlinking" on a NFS will show up as a stale NFS handle, i.e. a still visible
> hidden directory entry (.nfs00??). Therefore, one have to
> take car
Dear Christian,
>It was, but there was/is no O_EXCL in the open() command, so a
>pre-existing .hold file was never a reason for the container
>startup to fail. (Which was necessary because they were never
>removed on shutdown previously.) So in that sense, this behavior
>hasn't changed.
I'm sorry
Hello,
I'm late but I just want to mention that I expect that all this kind of
"unlinking" on a NFS will show up as a stale NFS handle, i.e. a still visible
hidden directory entry (.nfs00??). Therefore, one have to
take care of this (i.e. exclude) if he make a copy of such (
Hi there,
> I would suggest to add a config switch to choose between early
> unlinking and removing at shutdown. Because I'm using a setup where
> the rootfs are shared between several hosts and an container may be
> run on any of it. For this usecase, the rootfs pinmarker is a (not
> perfect but)
30 matches
Mail list logo
