Re: Charm Ecosystem Status for 30 October

2013-10-30 Thread John Arbash Meinel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2013-10-30 21:49, Jorge O. Castro wrote: > A very spooky charm status!! > > ## General Info - [Pad](http://pad.ubuntu.com/7mf2jvKXNa) - [Status > Board](https://trello.com/board/charmers-board/4ec1696da3f94bd2ea5b2b01) > > - - [Juju.u.c Meeting >

Re: Does the local provider require a HWE stack for 12.04?

2013-10-30 Thread David Cheney
All I can tell you is from my experience that Precise and the local provider are not tested and not known to work. You _may_ try the HWE raring kernel on your precise host, but I recommend Raring or later if you want to use the local provider. On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrot

Re: Does the local provider require a HWE stack for 12.04?

2013-10-30 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
I'm told that's for a network (veth nic?) performance issue? FWIW my main build+test box is running on 3.2 precise kernel with ubuntu-lxc daily ppa. overlayfs and lvm clones work perfectly out of the box, and btrfs (which i'm using now) only have the fsync performance issue, which I work around b

Charm Ecosystem Status for 30 October

2013-10-30 Thread Jorge O. Castro
A very spooky charm status!! ## General Info - [Pad](http://pad.ubuntu.com/7mf2jvKXNa) - [Status Board](https://trello.com/board/charmers-board/4ec1696da3f94bd2ea5b2b01) - [Juju.u.c Meeting Site](https://juju.ubuntu.com/community/weekly-charm-meeting/) - [Video of Meeting](http://youtu.be/HnNwRUA

Re: Sharing a DB user password among units of the app

2013-10-30 Thread Gustavo Niemeyer
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Marco Ceppi wrote: > You can't make that assumption and we really frown upon it in charm reviews. > I've seen cases where `juju deploy -n 5 service` results in unit 2 or really > unit > 0 being first up. There's also scenarios where there might not > actually be a

Re: Sharing a DB user password among units of the app

2013-10-30 Thread Marco Ceppi
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Kapil Thangavelu > wrote: > > Just thinking outloud, but In the active-active db scenario, there's an > > available db for the charm to store this info. ie. the charm could keep > some > > bookeeping tabl

Re: Sharing a DB user password among units of the app

2013-10-30 Thread Gustavo Niemeyer
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Kapil Thangavelu wrote: > Just thinking outloud, but In the active-active db scenario, there's an > available db for the charm to store this info. ie. the charm could keep some > bookeeping tables/db instead of using files on disk (a shared key via peer > relation

Re: Sharing a DB user password among units of the app

2013-10-30 Thread Kapil Thangavelu
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:58 AM, James Page wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 29/10/13 17:12, Kapil Thangavelu wrote: > > fwiw, the mysql charm tries to address this with a shared-db > > interface, and a separate admin interface. ie the shared-db > > interface shar

Re: Sharing a DB user password among units of the app

2013-10-30 Thread Gustavo Niemeyer
Hi James, What is the inconsistency problem with trying to share the password via relations? On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:58 AM, James Page wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 29/10/13 17:12, Kapil Thangavelu wrote: >> fwiw, the mysql charm tries to address this with a

Re: Sharing a DB user password among units of the app

2013-10-30 Thread James Page
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 29/10/13 17:12, Kapil Thangavelu wrote: > fwiw, the mysql charm tries to address this with a shared-db > interface, and a separate admin interface. ie the shared-db > interface shares out the same db user/password to multiple > services, and then