Re: lxd and constraints

2017-01-16 Thread Reed O'Brien
valid for this > > instance. > > > > I guess I'd rather see constraints still set limits for > > containers, because people really want that functionality, and > > that we warn any time you do a direct placement and the > > cons

Re: lxd and constraints

2017-01-16 Thread Merlijn Sebrechts
valid for this > > instance. > > > > I guess I'd rather see constraints still set limits for > > containers, because people really want that functionality, and > > that we warn any time you do a direct placement and the > > constraints

Re: lxd and constraints

2017-01-16 Thread Aaron Bentley
ed. (but warn isn't failing the attempt) > > John > =:-> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Stuart Bishop > <stuart.bis...@canonical.com > <mailto:stuart.bis...@canonical.com>> wrote: > > On 13 January 2017 at 0

Re: lxd and constraints

2017-01-13 Thread Nate Finch
onstraints aren't satisfied. (but warn isn't failing the attempt) John =:-> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Stuart Bishop <stuart.bis...@canonical.com > wrote: On 13 January 2017 at 02:20, Nate Finch <nate.fi...@canonical.com> wrote: I'm implementing constraints for lxd containers

Re: lxd and constraints

2017-01-13 Thread Rick Harding
failing the attempt) > > John > =:-> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Stuart Bishop < > stuart.bis...@canonical.com> wrote: > > On 13 January 2017 at 02:20, Nate Finch <nate.fi...@canonical.com> wrote: > > I'm implementing constraints for lxd contain

Re: lxd and constraints

2017-01-13 Thread John Meinel
satisfied. (but warn isn't failing the attempt) John =:-> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Stuart Bishop <stuart.bis...@canonical.com > wrote: > On 13 January 2017 at 02:20, Nate Finch <nate.fi...@canonical.com> wrote: > > I'm implementing constraints for lxd containe

Re: lxd and constraints

2017-01-13 Thread Stuart Bishop
On 13 January 2017 at 02:20, Nate Finch <nate.fi...@canonical.com> wrote: I'm implementing constraints for lxd containers and provider... and > stumbled on an impedance mismatch that I don't know how to handle. > > I'm not really sure how to resolve this problem. Maybe it's

Re: lxd and constraints

2017-01-12 Thread Mike Pontillo
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Nate Finch wrote: > The problem with trying to figure out how much "unused" RAM a host has is > that it gets thrown out the window if you ever deploy any unit to the host > machine, or if you deploy a unit in a container without a RAM

Re: lxd and constraints

2017-01-12 Thread Nate Finch
fi...@canonical.com> wrote: I'm implementing constraints for lxd containers and provider... and stumbled on an impedance mismatch that I don't know how to handle. It seems as though lxd limits (what in juju we would call constraints) are implemented as maximums, not minimums. For containers shar

Re: lxd and constraints

2017-01-12 Thread Mike Pontillo
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Nate Finch <nate.fi...@canonical.com> wrote: > I'm implementing constraints for lxd containers and provider... and > stumbled on an impedance mismatch that I don't know how to handle. > > It seems as though lxd limits (what in juju we woul

Re: lxd and constraints

2017-01-12 Thread Merlijn Sebrechts
d reduce vendor lock-in. Specifying "max usage" constraints for LXD containers is something that's very useful and the behavior you're describing seems logical for max constraints. When the maximum constraint is more than the available resources, then the container will never hit that

lxd and constraints

2017-01-12 Thread Nate Finch
I'm implementing constraints for lxd containers and provider... and stumbled on an impedance mismatch that I don't know how to handle. It seems as though lxd limits (what in juju we would call constraints) are implemented as maximums, not minimums. For containers sharing a host, this makes sense