I am fine with having full interaction with the host. The host does not do
anything, it is like a glove for my app, which uses UDP very intensely,
like 500 Mbits per second. I need to fine-tune all its parameters.
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 9:52 PM Stéphane Graber wrote:
> So the missing ones
So the missing ones there's really nothing you can do about, though
normally that shouldn't cause sysctl application to fail as it's
somewhat common for systems to have a different set of sysctls.
In this case, it's because the network namespace is filtering some of them.
If your container
some things do not work inside the container
sysctl -p
fs.aio-max-nr = 1048576
fs.aio-max-nr = 655360
fs.inotify.max_user_instances = 8192
kernel.pty.max = 16120
kernel.randomize_va_space = 1
kernel.shmall = 4294967296
kernel.shmmax = 990896795648
net.ipv4.conf.all.arp_announce = 2
Thanks
Finally some help!
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 9:07 PM Stéphane Graber wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:02:59PM -0400, Saint Michael wrote:
> > Thanks to all. I am sorry I touched a heated point. For me using
> > hard-virtualization for Linux apps is dementia. It should be kept only
> for
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:02:59PM -0400, Saint Michael wrote:
> Thanks to all. I am sorry I touched a heated point. For me using
> hard-virtualization for Linux apps is dementia. It should be kept only for
> Windows VMs.
> For me, the single point of using LXC is to be able to redeploy a complex
Greetings, Richard Hector!
> I installed a new KVM with LXC in it, and added Docker ... it seems that
> Docker's default iptables rules do interfere with the way I set up
> bridges for LXC, but with a bit more head scratching, I think I'll be
> able to make it work :-)
Since I normally use
Greetings, Saint Michael!
> Thanks to all. I am sorry I touched a heated point. For me using
> hard-virtualization for Linux apps is dementia. It should be kept only for
> Windows VMs.
> For me, the single point of using LXC is to be able to redeploy a complex
> app from host to host in a few
On 24/05/19 10:28 AM, Andrey Repin wrote:
> Greetings, Richard Hector!
>
>> I've been asked by my client to set up Docker on the host I'd set up for
>> them with LXC (on Debian Stretch). This is because the applications that
>> run in the containers (Atlassian suite, mostly) will in the future be
Thanks to all. I am sorry I touched a heated point. For me using
hard-virtualization for Linux apps is dementia. It should be kept only for
Windows VMs.
For me, the single point of using LXC is to be able to redeploy a complex
app from host to host in a few minutes. I use one-host->one-Container.
Given the developers stance, perhaps a temporary workaround is in order,
e.g. ssh-key root login to physical host e.g. "ssh sysctl
key=value..."
Jake
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Saint Michael wrote:
> I am trying to use sysctl -p inside an LXC container and it says
> read only file system
Use KVM and problem solved.
S.
___
lxc-users mailing list
lxc-users@lists.linuxcontainers.org
http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
This a political opinion, "Containers aren't designed or even intended to
have full host controls" I think they should have all the power, if the app
needs it.
Can we move away from this congressional debate?
How do I configure my container to be on par with the host? Is it doable?
On Fri, May
12 matches
Mail list logo
