Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com): > I'm not a big user of lxc-clone (yet) but I think as we redesign that > part of the code, consistency across backend should be a primary goal > even if that causes some slight changes in behaviour from previous > implementations.
Ok it finally dawned on me that if we want consistency, then we can't do it the new way. LVM backed containers are the primary counter example. To have $lxc_path/$lxc_name be lvm-backed would require the LV to be mounted at host boot. So what I'm going to do is implement a few more backing stores and a tiny temporary toy lxc-clone c program for easier testing, with zfs for now switched to only its rootfs being a separate zfs unit. We can't decide to switch all backing stores to the other way, but if we decide to later support zfs and btrfs having $lxcpath/$lxcname be separate units/subvolumes, it shouldn't be a big deal to special case that and support both. But I'd rather not complicate what I'm doing with that now. -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account! http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter _______________________________________________ Lxc-devel mailing list Lxc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-devel
