Quoting Daniel Lezcano (daniel.lezc...@free.fr): > On 03/19/2012 03:50 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote: > >Quoting Daniel Lezcano (daniel.lezc...@free.fr): > >>On 03/19/2012 12:00 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote: > >>>Hi, > >>> > >>>Thanks to Jäkel's and Fajar's great ideas, we can now cleanly shut down > >>>a container by sending it SIGPWR. I'm attaching two ways to do that. > >>>In-line is a patch which modifies lxc-stop to take optional -s and -t > >>>args - -s for shutdown (meaning send SIGPWR), and -t for a timeout, > >>>after sending SIGPWR, to hard-kill the container. > >>That may make more sense to implement a lxc-reboot | lxc-shutdow > >Is there another signal that would make sense for lxc-reboot? > > Yes, SIGINT will make the init process to restart the services. I > said lxc-reboot but that could be lxc-shutdown -r.
I personally prefer lxc-reboot, but I can imagine people liking lxc-shutdown -r. What do others prefer? > >>script on top of on lxc-kill. > >> > >>IMHO, I don't think adding a timeout is a good idea because the > >>shutdown process may take more than the timeout to stop the services > >>and the container could be killed while the services are doing some > >>cleanup or flush or whatever. If this option is present, people will > >>tend to use it instead of investigating if a service is stuck, or > >>working, or flushing. > >>I would recommend to let the shutdown script to handle the timeout > >>by themselves. > >By 'let the shutdown script to handle the timeout by themselves", you > >mean let the scripts calling lxc-shutdown handle the timeout? > > I meant the initrd scripts within the container to be fixed to > properly shutdown (for example add timeout or optimize the stopping > services). The init process will send SIGTERM to all the processes > and then SIGKILL after awhile. I don't think that should be handled > from outside. I agree we want to do that where we can. I disagree that we should rely on it. > Some services are bogus because they don't care when > they are stopped in the shutdown process because they expect to be > killed. For example, the sshd service was automatically respawned > after being killed by init at the shutdown time but that was only > spotted with containers. Right, and we should (and did) fix that, but lxc shouldn't look broken when the container misbehaves. > >leave lxc-shutdown to be as simple as 'lxc-kill -n $1 SIGPWR" ? > > Yes, lxc-shutdown could be in this case very trivial (may be adding > a couple of things like waiting for the container to stop before > exiting in order to have a synchronous command). (I dunno, from there it seems to me the next logical step to add a timeout :) But just waiting is fine for me.) Ok, so lxc-kill -n $1 SIGPWR lxc-wait -n $1 STOPPED I'll wait for comments on lxc-reboot v lxc-shutdown -r. thanks, -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ Lxc-users mailing list Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
