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