Quoting John (l...@jelmail.com): > On 19/10/12 16:51, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > > > Add: > > > > lxc.network.type = empty > > > > If you don't have any lxc.network.type sections, then the container > > shares network with the host, and so the container talks to the host's > > systemd. (same with upstart) > > > > > Thanks for the reply, I will try that tomorrow. I am sorry I wasn't > around to check for replies before now. One question though... I > actually want a separate network in the container (hence using veth) so > it has its own address distinct from the host. Are you saying that I > can't do this any more?
Not at all. But if you're saying you have a 'lxc.network.type = veth' in your container config, then what I said doesn't apply anyway. It sounds like the remount of /dev which Micheal mentioned is in fact your real problem! > I've also read the later replies and they seem to be saying that this > simply does not work (systemd inside a container). Given its > proliferation into other distros (I'm on Arch and that's the reason I am > looking at this now), where does systemd come in the priorities of LXC? Where does LXC come in the priorities of systemd? :) (my point being that it might be far easier to patch systemd to make the filesystems to mount configurable, versus implementing a devices namespace in the kernel so that lxc can work around it) But, lxc is open source, as is the kernel (and systemd) - when you send patches, your priorities influence its priorities. > I really hope we can get this working, as LXC has so far worked very > well for me. -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct _______________________________________________ Lxc-users mailing list Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
