On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:28:58PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> On 05/06/17 12:03, George Dunlap wrote:
> > Forgot to cc' the release manager.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:02 AM, George Dunlap
> > wrote:
> > > iptables has a system-wide lock on the xtables. Strangely though
Hi George,
On 05/06/17 12:03, George Dunlap wrote:
Forgot to cc' the release manager.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:02 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
iptables has a system-wide lock on the xtables. Strangely though, in
the case of two concurrent invocations, the default is for the
instance not grabbin
George Dunlap writes ("[PATCH for 4.9] vif-common.sh: Have iptables wait for
the xtables lock"):
> iptables has a system-wide lock on the xtables. Strangely though, in
> the case of two concurrent invocations, the default is for the
> instance not grabbing the lock to exit out rather than waiting
Forgot to cc' the release manager.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:02 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
> iptables has a system-wide lock on the xtables. Strangely though, in
> the case of two concurrent invocations, the default is for the
> instance not grabbing the lock to exit out rather than waiting for it
iptables has a system-wide lock on the xtables. Strangely though, in
the case of two concurrent invocations, the default is for the
instance not grabbing the lock to exit out rather than waiting for it.
This means that when starting a large number of guests in parallel,
many will fail out with mes
