On 13 January 2017 at 02:20, Nate Finch <nate.fi...@canonical.com> wrote:

I'm implementing constraints for lxd containers and provider... and
> stumbled on an impedance mismatch that I don't know how to handle.

> I'm not really sure how to resolve this problem.  Maybe it's not a
> problem.  Maybe constraints just have a different meaning for containers?
> You have to specify the machine number you're deploying to for any
> deployment past the first anyway, so you're already manually choosing the
> machine, at which point, constraints don't really make sense anyway.

I don't think Juju can handle this. Either constraints have different
meanings with different cloud providers, or lxd needs to accept minimum
constraints (along with any other cloud providers with this behavior).

If you decide constraints need to consistently mean minimum, then I'd argue
it is best to not pass them to current-gen lxd at all. Enforcing that
containers are restricted to the minimum viable resources declared in a
bundle does not seem helpful, and Juju does not have enough information to
choose suitable maximums (and if it did, would not know if they would
remain suitable tomorrow).

Stuart Bishop <stuart.bis...@canonical.com>
Juju-dev mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 

Reply via email to