Re: [Lxc-users] Problem with core dumps generated from containers, apport

On 04/24/2013 02:10 PM, Hans Feldt wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Serge Hallyn [mailto:serge.hal...@ubuntu.com] >> Sent: den 23 april 2013 14:52 >> To: Hans Feldt >> Cc: lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net >> Subject: Re: [Lxc-users] Problem with core dumps generated from >> containers,

[Lxc-users] Can't start container with cgroup limits

Hello again, I'm facing a strange issue (a bug maybe ?) on ubuntu 12.04. Creating a simple container (lxc-create -t ubuntu -c cn0) and adding these lines in the config file: lxc.cgroup.memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes = 1G lxc.cgroup.memory.limit_in_bytes = 512M lxc.cgroup.cpu.shares = 512 results

Re: [Lxc-users] Can't start container with cgroup limits

On Apr 25, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Elie Deloumeau wrote: > Try 1024M Thanks for your answer, lxc allows the B, M and G notation. Tried to set 1024M but didn't solve my problem. Definitely think this comes from the bad path: /sys/fs/cgroup/memory//lxc, but I have no idea where too fix this---

Re: [Lxc-users] Problem with core dumps generated from containers, apport

Thanks great! But what I don't (yet) understand is shouldn't the new %P behaviour be the default of %p instead? I mean a container PID never makes sense in host user space since there is a 1:n mapping. Meaning PID x can have n mappings on the host. Thanks, Hans On 04/25/2013 12:23 PM, Stéphane

Re: [Lxc-users] Problem with core dumps generated from containers, apport

On 04/25/2013 02:18 PM, Hans Feldt wrote: > Thanks great! But what I don't (yet) understand is shouldn't the new %P > behaviour be the default of %p instead? > > I mean a container PID never makes sense in host user space since there > is a 1:n mapping. Meaning PID x can have n mappings on the hos

Re: [Lxc-users] Problem with core dumps generated from containers, apport

Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com): > On 04/25/2013 02:18 PM, Hans Feldt wrote: > > Thanks great! But what I don't (yet) understand is shouldn't the new %P > > behaviour be the default of %p instead? > > > > I mean a container PID never makes sense in host user space since there > > is

Re: [Lxc-users] Can't start container with cgroup limits

Quoting Robin Monjo (appldiget) (robin.mo...@applidget.com): > Hello again, > > I'm facing a strange issue (a bug maybe ?) on ubuntu 12.04. Creating a simple > container (lxc-create -t ubuntu -c cn0) and adding these lines in the config > file: > > lxc.cgroup.memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes = 1G >

Re: [Lxc-users] Packet forwarding performance drop with 1000 containers

Hello, Working with 1000 containers I had already modified gc_thresh* to fit my needs. By mistake I had set gc_interval to a too high value (past 2^32) , forcing linux to set gc_interval to the default value (30) with is not suitable in my case. Setting gc_interval to 360 solved my problem.

Re: [Lxc-users] Packet forwarding performance drop with 1000 containers

What gc_thresh* values did you set?.. Having gc_interval=30 should not be a bad thing if you have a proper gc_thresh1 value. If you would disable garbage collector, as you did by setting large gc_interval, then your system could be accidentally DoS'ed by stopping/starting your containers, for e

Re: [Lxc-users] Packet forwarding performance drop with 1000 containers

I have 250 arp entries per containers and no more by design, so my values are : net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh1 = 28 net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh2 = 28 net.ipv4.neigh.default.gc_thresh3 = 28 In a real life environment, I would configure the value to have garbage collection work

Re: [Lxc-users] Problem with: lxc.autodev=1

Thanks for your work. Am 24.04.2013 14:30, schrieb Frederic Crozat: > Le lundi 22 avril 2013 à 13:57 +0200, Andreas Otto a écrit : >>> Ok. I'll do more tests on my side. But you should open a bug report on >>> https://bugzilla.novell.com/ against openSUSE (and assign it to me) so >>> we don't loo