On the other hand, I *do* also feel that any services on the containers
ought to be robust to unavailability, so that startup order should not
matter.
Dear Serge,
yes - it's Xmas time, bells are ringing and all is warm and bright. ;)
Unfortunately, it matters to the greater part of software.
Hey
I have set up some 10 containers on two different host machines with veth
setup
My network config is
lxc.network.type = veth
lxc.network.flags = up
lxc.network.link = br0
lxc.network.ipv4 = x.x.x.x/23
lxc.network.veth.pair = vm2
lxc.utsname = vm2
There are packet broadcast storms and BPDU
On 12/12/2012 10:54 AM, Kalyana sundaram wrote:
Hey
I have set up some 10 containers on two different host machines with veth
setup
My network config is
lxc.network.type = veth
lxc.network.flags = up
lxc.network.link = br0
lxc.network.ipv4 = x.x.x.x/23
Did you specified real IP address
Quoting Rob van der Hoeven (robvanderhoe...@ziggo.nl):
I would really like an extra lxc.mount.cwd entry in the configuration
file. Maybe this entry should be mandatory if the containers filesystem
is different from the host filesystem because in this case the cwd
By container fs is different
Quoting Rob van der Hoeven (robvanderhoe...@ziggo.nl):
On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 08:52 -0600, Serge Hallyn wrote:
...
I will be very happy with a lxc.chdir option! (I like the name, its
better than lxc.mount.cwd) Will probably use it in all my lxc-execute
configurations...
I'll add it to my todo
hi, i have two processes running in two containers, they are expected to
communicate with shared memory IPC, but it turned out to be failed. is there
any way to address this problem？
发送自HTC手机
- Reply message -
发件人： Serge Hallyn serge.hal...@canonical.com
收件人： Rob van der Hoeven
hi,
i have two processes running in two containers on the same hardware node,
they are expected to communicate with shared memory IPC mechanism, but it
turned out to be failed. It seems that the shared memory created in one
container is not visible to process in other container because
