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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo