because everything you need is already there.. you request a feature noone needs and that you can implement yourself already...
another approach: man lxc.container.conf(5) see lxc.hook.pre-start make that script check for /tmp/lxcdontautostart and bail out if it exists. Tom Am Samstag, den 09.08.2014, 11:02 -0400 schrieb CDR: > 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 _______________________________________________ lxc-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
