That is correct, but why not a command called "lxc-cancelautostart"? It seems obvious.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Tom Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > Everything is there already. Even in real world. > you could: > - define a run level for this purpose > - delay the autostart > - run your own script during bootup which asks you wether it should kick > off the lxc-autostart process or not - it might default to yes after a > timeout if no input occurs > - create your own script which would check the grub commandline for a > nolxcstartup parameter > ... > > there are plenty of ways which are way better than firing a bullet and > then requesting a feature to cancel it. > All of them are rather trivial to implement. Any professional admin to > host 300 containers should be able to do it. Yet you don't seem to even > have tried any of these solutions. > > Tom > > Am Samstag, den 09.08.2014, 10:32 -0400 schrieb CDR: >> This is a philosophical divide. I live in the real world, and are >> successfully moving all my business to LXC, or a combination of LXC >> and real virtualization, where you have a few virtual machines with >> hundreds of GBs of RAM and 36 or more cores, and these super-virtual >> machines act solely as container-of-containers. It means that my >> virtual machines have so many autostart containers, that it takes 30 >> minutes to stop them all in a loop. When for some reason I need to >> start the machines and do not need all the containers starting, the >> only way is to boot in single-user mode. Why? There should be way to >> stop the storm in its tracks, like >> cat 0 > /proc/lxc/autostart >> this way I could quickly stop the few containers that had already started. >> I see a world coming where every living corporation will be using a >> combination of Virtualization plus LXC. >> Philip >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:27 AM, brian mullan <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I've been reading this thread and this is the first and only time I've ever >> > heard anyone request such a "kill all" command for LXC to terminate >> > auto-start. >> > >> > Developer time is always in short supply and IMHO asking one of them to >> > spend their time on such a "corner-case" issue is not putting their efforts >> > to good use. >> > >> > There have been 2 alternatives proposed that seem would handle this event >> > and my opinion is that should be sufficient. >> > >> > LXC 1.x has a lot of important work going on and I'd rather see people >> > focused on the existing roadmap or on addressing critical bugs. >> > >> > Of course its all Open Source so anyone that can't live without such a >> > feature could either contribute the patches themselves or offer a bounty to >> > have it done for them. >> > >> > again just my opinion >> > >> > Brian >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
