Re: [Lxc-users] Many containers and too many open files

2011-02-25 Thread Daniel Lezcano
On 02/25/2011 11:19 PM, Brian K. White wrote: > On 2/25/2011 2:06 PM, Geordy Korte wrote: >> Maybee a really stupid question... but why would you want to run that many >> containers? > I won't say it's stupid but I'll say it's meaningless. Don't take it as > an insult I'm just explaining it's the

Re: [Lxc-users] Many containers and too many open files

2011-02-25 Thread Daniel Lezcano
On 02/25/2011 06:30 PM, Andre Nathan wrote: > On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 13:13 -0300, Andre Nathan wrote: >>> Google says you can setup these tables with the following values if you >>> encounter this problem. >>> >>> echo 256> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/neigh/default/gc_thresh1 >>> echo 512> /proc/sys/net/ip

Re: [Lxc-users] Many containers and too many open files

2011-02-25 Thread C Anthony Risinger
On Feb 25, 2011 4:20 PM, "Brian K. White" wrote: > > On 2/25/2011 2:06 PM, Geordy Korte wrote: > > Maybee a really stupid question... but why would you want to run that many containers? > > I won't say it's stupid but I'll say it's meaningless. Don't take it as > an insult I'm just explaining it's

Re: [Lxc-users] Many containers and too many open files

2011-02-25 Thread Brian K. White
On 2/25/2011 2:06 PM, Geordy Korte wrote: > Maybee a really stupid question... but why would you want to run that many > containers? I won't say it's stupid but I'll say it's meaningless. Don't take it as an insult I'm just explaining it's the wrong way to think about it. It's like asking why d

Re: [Lxc-users] Many containers and too many open files

2011-02-25 Thread Daniel Lezcano
On 02/25/2011 08:06 PM, Geordy Korte wrote: > Maybee a really stupid question... but why would you want to run that many > containers? What is interesting with the containers is the scalability. The more CPU/memory you have, the more you can add containers. AFAIK, sourceforge provides a shell ins

Re: [Lxc-users] Many containers and too many open files

2011-02-25 Thread Andre Nathan
On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 20:06 +0100, Geordy Korte wrote: > Maybee a really stupid question... but why would you want to run that many > containers? The idea is to use containers as a lighter-weight approach to provide isolation between customers (compared to hardware virtualization). Andre -

Re: [Lxc-users] Many containers and too many open files

2011-02-25 Thread Geordy Korte
Maybee a really stupid question... but why would you want to run that many containers? Mvg Geordy Korte (Sent via iphone so shorter then normal) On 25 feb. 2011, at 18:30, Andre Nathan wrote: > On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 13:13 -0300, Andre Nathan wrote: >>> Google says you can setup these tables

Re: [Lxc-users] Many containers and too many open files

2011-02-25 Thread Andre Nathan
On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 13:13 -0300, Andre Nathan wrote: > > Google says you can setup these tables with the following values if you > > encounter this problem. > > > > echo 256 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/neigh/default/gc_thresh1 > > echo 512 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/neigh/default/gc_thresh2 > > echo 1024 >

Re: [Lxc-users] Many containers and too many open files

2011-02-25 Thread Andre Nathan
On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 16:47 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Mmh, I don't remember exactly what I did (that was last year). But you > are right, the containers where spawned one after the other. I think I > was doing lxc-wait -n -s RUNNING before running the next > container. As I have a 8 cores,

Re: [Lxc-users] Many containers and too many open files

2011-02-25 Thread Daniel Lezcano
On 02/25/2011 03:39 PM, Andre Nathan wrote: > On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 08:06 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> I did exactly the same configuration and ran 1024 containers. > By the way, how did you handle the start-up of that many containers? The > load average goes up very quickly unless I add a "slee

Re: [Lxc-users] Many containers and too many open files

2011-02-25 Thread Andre Nathan
On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 08:06 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > I did exactly the same configuration and ran 1024 containers. By the way, how did you handle the start-up of that many containers? The load average goes up very quickly unless I add a "sleep 1" between lxc-start calls... Did you have "Ne

Re: [Lxc-users] LXC Container Boot/Shutdown errors

2011-02-25 Thread Kelly Gibson
The only success I had was in running: host # /sbin/init 1 but because it wasn't properly completing the shutdown I was a little concerned about proceeding with that as a reasonable solution. Unless I misunderstand this, it seems to me that there should be a way to designate that some of the

Re: [Lxc-users] Many containers and too many open files

2011-02-25 Thread Andre Nathan
Hi Daniel On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 08:06 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > I did exactly the same configuration and ran 1024 containers. > I hadn't to modify any ulimits for the container AFAIR, but just to > tweak /proc/sys limits. Other than /proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_instances, do you remember

Re: [Lxc-users] updated lxc template for debian squeeze - with attachedscript ; )

2011-02-25 Thread Jäkel , Guido
Dear John, > - generate random mac address for the guest so it gets always the same > lease from a dhcp server You suggest doing this by macaddr=$(echo -n 00; hexdump -n 5 -v -e '/1 ":%02X"' /dev/urandom) I think this is a "little bit to random". The german Wikipedia tells at http