Re: LXD polish for xenial

Thanks for the update, appreciate the consideration! On Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 2:29 PM Alexis Bruemmer wrote: > Thank you all for the great feedback on 2.0! Based on this thread and > similar feedback the juju-core dev team has made some updates to the plan > for lxd

Re: LXD polish for xenial

Thank you all for the great feedback on 2.0! Based on this thread and similar feedback the juju-core dev team has made some updates to the plan for lxd support in juju 2.0. Most notably on how juju 2.0 will handle bundles specifying use of containers. A summary of container support for juju 2.0:

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:39 PM, John Meinel wrote: > ... > > >> So the plan as I understand it is that we're planning on updating Bundles >>> to use the term "lxd" as the container they are requesting. And then >>> updating the deployer and other tools to understand

Re: LXD polish for xenial

... > So the plan as I understand it is that we're planning on updating Bundles >> to use the term "lxd" as the container they are requesting. And then >> updating the deployer and other tools to understand that they need to >> translate that back to LXC for Juju-1.X. The rationale is that we

Re: LXD polish for xenial

Thanks for explaining, John, that makes sense and really helps me understand the reasoning behind these changes. On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:30 PM John Meinel wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Nate Finch > wrote: > >> Then I guess I

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Nate Finch wrote: > Then I guess I don't understand why it worked fine up until last week. > So up until last week LXD depended on the 'lxc1' package which was the old tools for creating containers. That did always set up an 'lxcbr0'

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On 18/04/2016, Tycho Andersen wrote: >> >> Unlike other providers, lxd exposes no way to use the daily images >> instead of release images, so at present any machine using lxd >> containers with juju for the first time will get the xenial beta2 >> image then upgrade

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On 18/04/2016, Martin Packman wrote: > > "autopkgtest lxd provider tests fail for 2.0" > > > So, at present we don't have confidence that the LXD provider will > work, even with the manual

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:43 AM, John Meinel wrote: > ... > >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 2:17 PM Martin Packman < >>> martin.pack...@canonical.com> wrote: >>> When it comes to using lxd in clouds, as I understand it we've settled on retaining the 'lxc' and 'lxd'

Re: LXD polish for xenial

Then I guess I don't understand why it worked fine up until last week. On Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 10:39 AM Tycho Andersen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 01:42:08PM +, Nate Finch wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:49 AM John Meinel >

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 01:42:08PM +, Nate Finch wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:49 AM John Meinel wrote: > > > ... > >>> > >> > > > >> > >>> That's probably the cause of the other confusion in the updated docs - > >>> now we *do* want the bridge named lxdbr0 not

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:49 AM John Meinel wrote: > ... >>> >> > >> >>> That's probably the cause of the other confusion in the updated docs - >>> now we *do* want the bridge named lxdbr0 not lxcbr0. If the user >>> already has lxc setup in some fashion there's a

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:31 PM Nicholas Skaggs < nicholas.ska...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Marco Ceppi > wrote: > >> Thanks so much for spending time on this polish! It'll really help our >> user experience shine for cost effective dev.

Re: LXD polish for xenial

> > ... >> > > >> That's probably the cause of the other confusion in the updated docs - >> now we *do* want the bridge named lxdbr0 not lxcbr0. If the user >> already has lxc setup in some fashion there's a different error from >> juju telling them to run the dpkg-reconfigure command. That

Re: LXD polish for xenial

... > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 2:17 PM Martin Packman >> wrote: >> >>> When it comes to using lxd in clouds, as I understand it we've settled >>> on retaining the 'lxc' and 'lxd' name distinction in 2.0 - which does >>> mean bundles have to be manually changed at

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Martin Packman < martin.pack...@canonical.com> wrote: > > For the lxd provider, I understand we're resigned to the user having > to manually configure a bridge for lxd before bootstrap can work. > Currently the documentation is confused as to what exactly the steps

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Marco Ceppi wrote: > Thanks so much for spending time on this polish! It'll really help our > user experience shine for cost effective dev. > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 2:17 PM Martin Packman > wrote: > >>

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:12 PM Tycho Andersen wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Thanks for looking into this. > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 07:17:29PM +0100, Martin Packman wrote: > > With the LXD 2.0 release at the start of last week and the prospect of > > some stability, I

Re: LXD polish for xenial

Thanks so much for spending time on this polish! It'll really help our user experience shine for cost effective dev. On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 2:17 PM Martin Packman wrote: > When it comes to using lxd in clouds, as I understand it we've settled > on retaining the

Re: LXD polish for xenial

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 04:12:14PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote: > > Actually, you might get this error with current master too now that I > think about it. I'll see about testing that and sending a PR which > fixes it. And indeed you do. https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/5205 should fix this.

Re: LXD polish for xenial

Hi Martin, Thanks for looking into this. On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 07:17:29PM +0100, Martin Packman wrote: > With the LXD 2.0 release at the start of last week and the prospect of > some stability, I spent a good chunk of the week testing of Juju and > LXD. > > What CI has been doing so far this

LXD polish for xenial

With the LXD 2.0 release at the start of last week and the prospect of some stability, I spent a good chunk of the week testing of Juju and LXD. What CI has been doing so far this cycle has been running our standard deployment tests with the lxd provider on a pre-prepared machine with a