Thanks David -- I think it's currently targetted at 1.16.5:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1089291 I'll be following it there. :) On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 3:06 PM, David Cheney <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 8:47 AM, David Britton > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi -- > > > > If I terminate a machine out from underneath juju, how do I correctly > inform > > juju that machine is no longer there? > > The current solution we have for this is 'please don't do that, juju > needs to own machines' ,but we understand that this can easily happen > outside of your control. > > At the moment that will probably leave your juju instance with a > phantom reference to a machine. Worse, if this machine was created > without a service unit assigned, ie via juju add-machine, it may > attract a unit which will never be deployed (because the machine has > been removed). > > I say at the moment because this is being worked on as we speak and > may already be fixed in 1.16.4 or later. You should at least upgrade > to this release. > > If it is fixed in 1.16.4, when the release notes are available they > will mention a new option on destroy-machine to forcefully remove it > from the database. Like all --force style options, this should be used > with care and not enshrined into regular use. > > > > > Is there a way to gracefully terminate from the service unit/machine > > perspective (equivalent of shutdown to AWS or Nova, it will destroy the > > instance)? > > > > Thanks! > > > > -- > > David Britton <[email protected]> > > > > -- > > Juju mailing list > > [email protected] > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju > > > -- David Britton <[email protected]>
-- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
