On 04/23/2013 09:59 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote:
> On 04/23/2013 01:28 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
>> Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com):
>>> I'm not a big user of lxc-clone (yet) but I think as we redesign that
>>> part of the code, consistency across backend should be a primary goal
>>> even
On 04/21/2013 03:37 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
>
> Quoting Serge Hallyn (serge.hal...@ubuntu.com):
>> Any feedback on this patch?
>>
>> I also have a question on behavior details. Until now, we've set up
>> btrfs containers so that $lxcpath is a subvolume, and then each
>> $rootfs is a subvolume. W
On 04/23/2013 10:51 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote:
> If we don't set the block device as lxc.rootfs, then the host has to
> mount the LVM outside of the container's mount namespace, which we
> prefer not to have to do, especially as you get into a chicken and egg
> problem where the LVM path is set in
Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com):
> On 04/23/2013 10:41 PM, Tamas Papp wrote:
> > On 04/23/2013 09:59 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote:
> >> On 04/23/2013 01:28 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> >>> Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com):
> I'm not a big user of lxc-clone (yet) but I thin
On 04/23/2013 10:41 PM, Tamas Papp wrote:
> On 04/23/2013 09:59 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote:
>> On 04/23/2013 01:28 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
>>> Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com):
I'm not a big user of lxc-clone (yet) but I think as we redesign that
part of the code, consistency
On 04/23/2013 01:28 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com):
>> I'm not a big user of lxc-clone (yet) but I think as we redesign that
>> part of the code, consistency across backend should be a primary goal
>> even if that causes some slight changes in behaviour from
Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com):
> I'm not a big user of lxc-clone (yet) but I think as we redesign that
> part of the code, consistency across backend should be a primary goal
> even if that causes some slight changes in behaviour from previous
> implementations.
Ok it finally dawne
Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com):
> On 04/21/2013 03:37 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Serge Hallyn (serge.hal...@ubuntu.com):
> >> Any feedback on this patch?
> >>
> >> I also have a question on behavior details. Until now, we've set up
> >> btrfs containers so that $lxcpath is
On 04/21/2013 03:37 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Serge Hallyn (serge.hal...@ubuntu.com):
>> Any feedback on this patch?
>>
>> I also have a question on behavior details. Until now, we've set up
>> btrfs containers so that $lxcpath is a subvolume, and then each
>> $rootfs is a subvolume. Wit
Quoting Serge Hallyn (serge.hal...@ubuntu.com):
> Any feedback on this patch?
>
> I also have a question on behavior details. Until now, we've set up
> btrfs containers so that $lxcpath is a subvolume, and then each
> $rootfs is a subvolume. With zfs, per Papp's request, we're making
> the (zfs
Any feedback on this patch?
I also have a question on behavior details. Until now, we've set up
btrfs containers so that $lxcpath is a subvolume, and then each
$rootfs is a subvolume. With zfs, per Papp's request, we're making
the (zfs equivalent of a subvolume) at the $lxcpath/$lxc_name. So
t
This is based on patch from Papp Tamas (thanks). It also does
some reorganizing of lxc-create to commonize some of the
backingstore handling.
I didn't test on btrfs or zfs, but did test that '-B btrfs' and
'-B zfs' properly fail when needed, and that lvm and dir and
_unset still work as they shou
12 matches
Mail list logo
