[systemd-devel] How to deploy systemd-nspawn containers and use for deployment
Hello. I've been thinking about how I could use systemd-nspawn containers. Ideally, we have a local container which can then be pushed to one or more VPS instances. An example workflow might look like this: - Step 1: On development box, update some software in a container and test. It's okay. - Step 2: Push the container to several VPSs, some procedure to minimise downtime while updating. - Step 3: ... - Step 4: Profit. For step 2, what would be the best practice. Rsync the local container to the remote container? Kind regards, Samuel ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Fedora 25, cgroups V2 and systemd roadmap
Hello, Daniel, > We don't want to support out of tree kernel patches, This sounds very reasonable, I don't have anything against this policy. Still, I wonder: are you ruling out implementing "hybrid mode" (like Lennart uses in systemd) for libvirt? I mean a mode where you will use the 3 currently supported cgroup V2 controllers for libvirt (memory, io and pids; actually I don't know if you use the cgroups pids at all in libvirt, it is a new controller; BTW - do you ? ). And using other controllers (besides io, memory and pids) from cgroup V1 Regards, Kevin ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Fedora 25, cgroups V2 and systemd roadmap
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 05:30:35PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > On 10/10/2016 04:46 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > I still hope that Fedora can go the Facebook route, and just patch the > > stuff in, and ignore the fight going on in the kernel community. > > That wont fly by the kernel sub community in Fedora in which they are doing > whatever they can not having to carry out of tree patches and wind up in the > same scenario they have been in with "Secure Boot" for the past what 3 - 5 > years now. > > I'm pretty sure that every downstream distribution has already realized that > the longer they carry patch or patches that exist out of tree, the harder > they get to maintain without extra support as in additional manpower in > maintaining the kernel for that distribution and will also chose not to > carry that patches. Yeah, it won't really fly from libvirt POV either. We don't want to support out of tree kernel patches, because history has shown that causes long term pain in the (fairly likely) event that the patches gets changed before finally merging. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o-http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
