[Lxc-users] Can't start container with cgroup limits

2013-04-25 Thread Robin Monjo (appldiget)
Hello again, I'm facing a strange issue (a bug maybe ?) on ubuntu 12.04. Creating a simple container (lxc-create -t ubuntu -c cn0) and adding these lines in the config file: lxc.cgroup.memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes = 1G lxc.cgroup.memory.limit_in_bytes = 512M lxc.cgroup.cpu.shares = 512 results

Re: [Lxc-users] Can't start container with cgroup limits

2013-04-25 Thread Robin Monjo (appldiget)
On Apr 25, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Elie Deloumeau e...@deloumeau.fr wrote: Try 1024M Thanks for your answer, lxc allows the B, M and G notation. Tried to set 1024M but didn't solve my problem. Definitely think this comes from the bad path: /sys/fs/cgroup/memory//lxc, but I have no idea where

Re: [Lxc-users] Problem with core dumps generated from containers, apport

2013-04-25 Thread Hans Feldt
Thanks great! But what I don't (yet) understand is shouldn't the new %P behaviour be the default of %p instead? I mean a container PID never makes sense in host user space since there is a 1:n mapping. Meaning PID x can have n mappings on the host. Thanks, Hans On 04/25/2013 12:23 PM,

Re: [Lxc-users] Problem with core dumps generated from containers, apport

2013-04-25 Thread Stéphane Graber
On 04/25/2013 02:18 PM, Hans Feldt wrote: Thanks great! But what I don't (yet) understand is shouldn't the new %P behaviour be the default of %p instead? I mean a container PID never makes sense in host user space since there is a 1:n mapping. Meaning PID x can have n mappings on the host.

Re: [Lxc-users] Problem with core dumps generated from containers, apport

2013-04-25 Thread Serge Hallyn
Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com): On 04/25/2013 02:18 PM, Hans Feldt wrote: Thanks great! But what I don't (yet) understand is shouldn't the new %P behaviour be the default of %p instead? I mean a container PID never makes sense in host user space since there is a 1:n

Re: [Lxc-users] Packet forwarding performance drop with 1000 containers

2013-04-25 Thread Benoit Lourdelet
Hello, Working with 1000 containers I had already modified gc_thresh* to fit my needs. By mistake I had set gc_interval to a too high value (past 2^32) , forcing linux to set gc_interval to the default value (30) with is not suitable in my case. Setting gc_interval to 360 solved my problem.

Re: [Lxc-users] Packet forwarding performance drop with 1000 containers

2013-04-25 Thread Andrew Grigorev
What gc_thresh* values did you set?.. Having gc_interval=30 should not be a bad thing if you have a proper gc_thresh1 value. If you would disable garbage collector, as you did by setting large gc_interval, then your system could be accidentally DoS'ed by stopping/starting your containers, for

Re: [Lxc-users] Problem with: lxc.autodev=1

2013-04-25 Thread Andreas Otto
Thanks for your work. Am 24.04.2013 14:30, schrieb Frederic Crozat: Le lundi 22 avril 2013 à 13:57 +0200, Andreas Otto a écrit : Ok. I'll do more tests on my side. But you should open a bug report on https://bugzilla.novell.com/ against openSUSE (and assign it to me) so we don't loose it. -