On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 23:19 -0500, Brian K. White wrote:
> From lxc-check/lxc-waiton-init:
> > # We use to be able to use lxc-ls but it now prints active VM's twice
> Only if you ran lxc-create and then lxc-start.
Very true and that's been discussed a bit on the -devel list.
> If you just run..
From lxc-check/lxc-waiton-init:
> # We use to be able to use lxc-ls but it now prints active VM's twice
Only if you ran lxc-create and then lxc-start.
If you just run...
lxc-start -f config -n name
...with no prior lxc-create, then lxc-ls only shows the container name once.
Obviously assu
this is great stuff, thanks for sharing your script and to Daniel for
the inotifywait trick; i've gotten it to work in my setup.
looking forward to a Just Works (kernel)? solution :-) but this is
working splendidly, thanks again.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
>
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 00:42 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> I trick I just found:
>
> while $(true); do
> inotifywait /var/lib/lxc/debian/rootfs/var/run/utmp;
> if [ "$(wc -l /cgroup/debian/tasks | awk '{ print $1 }')" = "1" ]; then
> lxc-stop -n debian
> fi;
> done
> This co
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 20:50 -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> Mui Bien! Gracias!
Or... I really should have responded... Merci beaucop. Studying
Spanish. Haven't had French since high school (and my Russian is real
rusty). But I'm trying...
> Attached.
> Mike
Regards,
Mike
--
Michael
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 01:37 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Ah, ok didn't know upstart kept using utmp for compatibility. Interesting.
Too much depends on that entire stuff. Thou shalt NOT break
Posix compliance.
Mike
--
Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 | m...@wittsend.com
/\/
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 01:50 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 00:42 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I trick I just found:
> >>
> >> while $(true); do
> >> inotifywait /var/lib/lxc/debian/rootfs/var/run/utmp;
> >> if [ "$(wc -l
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 00:42 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 21:50 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> apologies for the length, but how is everyone else handling this?
> >>> this is the last thing i need to solve before i actually start
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 00:42 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> I trick I just found:
>
> while $(true); do
> inotifywait /var/lib/lxc/debian/rootfs/var/run/utmp;
> if [ "$(wc -l /cgroup/debian/tasks | awk '{ print $1 }')" = "1" ]; then
> lxc-stop -n debian
> fi;
> done
Seems to
Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 00:42 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>
>> I trick I just found:
>>
>> while $(true); do
>> inotifywait /var/lib/lxc/debian/rootfs/var/run/utmp;
>> if [ "$(wc -l /cgroup/debian/tasks | awk '{ print $1 }')" = "1" ]; then
>> lxc-st
Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 00:42 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>> Michael H. Warfield wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 21:50 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
> apologies for the length, but how is everyone else handling this?
> this is
Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 23:39 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>> Michael H. Warfield wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 21:50 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
> apologies for the length, but how is everyone else handling this?
> this is
Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 21:50 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>
>>> apologies for the length, but how is everyone else handling this?
>>> this is the last thing i need to solve before i actually start running
>>> all my services on this setup.
>>>
>>>
>> I was
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 23:39 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 21:50 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> apologies for the length, but how is everyone else handling this?
> >>> this is the last thing i need to solve before i actually start
Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 21:50 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>
>>> apologies for the length, but how is everyone else handling this?
>>> this is the last thing i need to solve before i actually start running
>>> all my services on this setup.
>>>
>>>
>> I was
And here I am replying to myself... Again... :-/
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 16:18 -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 21:50 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> > > apologies for the length, but how is everyone else handling this?
> > > this is the last thing i need to solve befor
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 21:50 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > apologies for the length, but how is everyone else handling this?
> > this is the last thing i need to solve before i actually start running
> > all my services on this setup.
> >
> I was wondering if the kernel shouldn't send a signa
ah ok. i think i remember reading that message about the shutdown
issues. also in my last message i mixed up SIGINT and SIGPWR; with
the inittab im using, SIGPWR to container will enter runlevel 0, and
SIGINT will enter runlevel 6 then immediately back to 3 (reboot).
i managed to create a workar
Tony Risinger wrote:
> hello,
>
> over the past several weeks i have been working intensively on setting
> up my personal servers with LXC based containers. at this point, i am
> extremely pleased with my setup, and will soon be sharing all that i
> have accomplished in the form of several scripts
19 matches
Mail list logo
