On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 12:20 -0400, CDR wrote: > The current SUSE 11 SP3 templates are useless. > The on-line repository is corrupt and since Novell sold the company, > there is no maintenance. > I had to install the container from the ISO files. > I think SLES is an abandoned distribution. Fortunately, OpenSUSE seems > vibrant. > I have a single client that loves SUSE.
It's not an abandoned distro. I don't think... In fact, I was thinking that a new release had just come out late last year but I guess it was just the latest service pack to SEL 11. Releases and service packs have been few and far between, though, I'll admit. SEL 11 is 5 years old now. Sigh... I traded E-Mails with a couple of their developers earlier this year. They may be short handed and unable to response in a way we would like, but we've all been there. Fortunately, I'm no longer involved in anything that requires SEL. Regards, Mike > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Michael H. Warfield <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 11:36 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote: > >> On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 11:20 -0400, CDR wrote: > >> > Well, I just found real business case where your theory falls flat. > >> > In a Suse Enterprise container, the only way to allow the owner of the > >> > container to install new packages, is to mount permanently the > >> > original ISO and the original SDK iso, otherwise zypper would not > >> > work. The updates come from the internet, but new base packages you > >> > need to fetch them from the ISO. I am not sure if zypper just mounts > >> > and dismounts them on the sport and frees the loop device. > >> > Suppose my customer clones 50 times a container, this would blow > >> > through the available loop devices. > > > >> Yeah, I ran into that on some mainframes using full hardware VM's. We > >> had zLinux Suse SEL running as a VM on a zSeries mainframe. Same issue. > >> Same solution. The host services provides the mounted images (they set > >> the container up in the first place) either though full mounts or bind > >> mounts. > > > >> That's actually an easier and more reliable solution which I've seen > >> used in practice with HW VM's. One image in the host can service > >> multiple HW VM's and containers. I've even seen that done with some > >> RHEL instantiations in HW VM's. That's a fixed (pun and dual meaning > >> fully intended here) case and I don't see where we need anything > >> different here. > > > > I should also add that, if that were a hard requirement for Suse which > > absolutely could not be worked around in the host, the Suse maintainers > > should add that option to their template and their configuration include > > for all the Suse templates. It still should not be part of the general > > default for all containers and all distros. > > > > Regards, > > Mike > > > >> > Yours > >> > > >> > Philip > >> > > >> > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Michael H. Warfield <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 10:33 -0400, CDR wrote: > >> > >> Dear Mike > >> > >> It does work indeed. > >> > >> I suggest that the developers add these two lines to the sample > >> > >> configuration. > >> > > > >> > > It's been discussed and passed on for reasons for the time being. The > >> > > need for it in containers is relatively limited. > >> > > > >> > > There also are currently some isolation issues between containers with > >> > > the loop devices. i.e. Running losetup -l currently dumps the > >> > > information of all the loop devices system wide even if you are in a > >> > > container. I'm not sure at this point in time if you did a losetup -d > >> > > on a loop device in a container, which had not setup the loop device, > >> > > what would happen. I hadn't previously tested that yet but... It > >> > > seems > >> > > to "fail" silently as if it succeeded but doesn't really do anything. > >> > > It's not clean. In most cases, using losetup to automatically managed > >> > > the appropriate loop device does the right thing and avoids collisions. > >> > > > >> > > Then there's the issue of the number of available loop devices. > >> > > Because > >> > > they're shared, if one container consumes 3 and another container > >> > > requires 2, the second one is going to fail in the default > >> > > configuration > >> > > (Default is 4 - I run with 64). > >> > > > >> > > I would personally advise only adding loop devices to those containers > >> > > that absolutely need them. I don't think they are appropriate as > >> > > default devices at this time when most containers don't even need them. > >> > > I would especially avoid them in cases where you may be hosting > >> > > containers for others. I have about a half a dozen groups of > >> > > containers > >> > > I'm hosting for other friends and relatives and business associates on > >> > > a > >> > > bit colocated server I run. I wouldn't enable loop devices in any of > >> > > those containers unless it was specifically requested and even then > >> > > only > >> > > for the duration of the need. They know. They've never asked. > >> > > Certainly no need for that to be in a default configuration. > >> > > > >> > > Yes that limits the container owners ability to mount images but that's > >> > > really not that common in practice outside of developers. > >> > > > >> > > Building containers within containers, you may also run into problems > >> > > with certain package installs and builds having unusual requirements > >> > > for > >> > > capabilities (setfcap comes immediately to mind). I run into this when > >> > > I created containers to build NST (Network Security Toolkit) images, in > >> > > addition to the expected loop device issues. That's another thing that > >> > > should only be enabled on those specific containers requiring it. > >> > > > >> > >> Yours > >> > >> Philip > >> > > > >> > > Regards, > >> > > Mike > >> > > > >> > >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Michael H. Warfield > >> > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 06:25 -0400, CDR wrote: > >> > >> >> Dear Friends > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> I succesfully created a SLES 11 SP3 container, but when I try to > >> > >> >> do this > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> mount -o loop /images/SLE-11-SP3-SDK-DVD-x86_64-GM-DVD1.iso /media > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> mount: Could not find any loop device. Maybe this kernel does not > >> > >> >> know > >> > >> >> about the loop device? (If so, recompile or `modprobe > >> > >> >> loop'.) > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Add the following to your container configuration file: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > lxc.cgroup.devices.allow = c 10:137 rwm # loop-control > >> > >> > lxc.cgroup.devices.allow = b 7:* rwm # loop* > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Then make sure you have the following devices in your container /dev > >> > >> > directory... > >> > >> > > >> > >> > brw-rw----. 1 root disk 7, 0 May 2 13:03 /dev/loop0 > >> > >> > brw-rw----. 1 root disk 7, 1 May 2 13:03 /dev/loop1 > >> > >> > brw-rw----. 1 root disk 7, 2 May 2 13:03 /dev/loop2 > >> > >> > brw-rw----. 1 root disk 7, 3 May 2 13:03 /dev/loop3 > >> > >> > crw-------. 1 root root 10, 237 May 2 13:03 /dev/loop-control > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Regards, > >> > >> > Mike > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> My host is Fedora 20 and the LXC version is > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> rpm -qa | grep lxc > >> > >> >> libvirt-daemon-lxc-1.1.3.4-4.fc20.x86_64 > >> > >> >> libvirt-daemon-driver-lxc-1.1.3.4-4.fc20.x86_64 > >> > >> >> lxc-devel-1.0.0-1.fc20.x86_64 > >> > >> >> lxc-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc20.x86_64 > >> > >> >> lxc-libs-1.0.0-1.fc20.x86_64 > >> > >> >> lxc-1.0.0-1.fc20.x86_64 > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> the configuration is: > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> lxc.start.auto = 0 > >> > >> >> lxc.start.delay = 5 > >> > >> >> lxc.start.order = 10 > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> # When using LXC with apparmor, uncomment the next line to run > >> > >> >> unconfined: > >> > >> >> #lxc.aa_profile = unconfined > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> lxc.cgroup.devices.deny = a > >> > >> >> # /dev/null and zero > >> > >> >> lxc.cgroup.devices.allow = c 1:3 rwm > >> > >> >> lxc.cgroup.devices.allow = c 1:5 rwm > >> > >> >> # consoles > >> > >> >> lxc.cgroup.devices.allow = c 5:1 rwm > >> > >> >> lxc.cgroup.devices.allow = c 5:0 rwm > >> > >> >> lxc.cgroup.devices.allow = c 4:0 rwm > >> > >> >> lxc.cgroup.devices.allow = c 4:1 rwm > >> > >> >> # /dev/{,u}random > >> > >> >> lxc.cgroup.devices.allow = c 1:9 rwm > >> > >> >> lxc.cgroup.devices.allow = c 1:8 rwm > >> > >> >> lxc.cgroup.devices.allow = c 136:* rwm > >> > >> >> lxc.cgroup.devices.allow = c 5:2 rwm > >> > >> >> # rtc > >> > >> >> lxc.cgroup.devices.allow = c 254:0 rwm > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> # mounts point > >> > >> >> lxc.mount.entry = proc proc proc nodev,noexec,nosuid 0 0 > >> > >> >> lxc.mount.entry = sysfs sys sysfs defaults 0 0 > >> > >> >> lxc.mount.entry = /images /var/lib/lxc/utel-kde/rootfs/images > >> > >> >> none bind 0 0 > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> lxc.network.type=macvlan > >> > >> >> lxc.network.macvlan.mode=bridge > >> > >> >> lxc.network.link=eth1 > >> > >> >> lxc.network.flags=up > >> > >> >> lxc.network.hwaddr = e2:91:a8:17:97:e4 > >> > >> >> lxc.network.ipv4 = 0.0.0.0/21 > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> How do make the kernel loop module available for the container? > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> Yours > >> > >> >> Philip > >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> > >> >> lxc-users mailing list > >> > >> >> [email protected] > >> > >> >> http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users > >> > >> > > >> > >> > -- > >> > >> > Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 978-7061 | [email protected] > >> > >> > /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | > >> > >> > http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ > >> > >> > NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the > >> > >> > best of all > >> > >> > PGP Key: 0x674627FF | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure > >> > >> > of it! > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > >> > lxc-users mailing list > >> > >> > [email protected] > >> > >> > http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > >> lxc-users mailing list > >> > >> [email protected] > >> > >> http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 978-7061 | [email protected] > >> > > /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | > >> > > http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ > >> > > NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best > >> > > of all > >> > > PGP Key: 0x674627FF | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of > >> > > it! > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > lxc-users mailing list > >> > > [email protected] > >> > > http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > lxc-users mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users > >> > > > > -- > > Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 978-7061 | [email protected] > > /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ > > NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of > > all > > PGP Key: 0x674627FF | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it! > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lxc-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users > _______________________________________________ > lxc-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users -- Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 978-7061 | [email protected] /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0x674627FF | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ lxc-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
