[lxc-devel] Container autostart proposal V2

[Harald Dunkel]

Hi Stéphane,

On 05/30/13 17:39, Stéphane Graber wrote:
>
> If we were to use groups for everything, we'd end up having to reserve
> "disabled", "autostart", "last-state".
>
> And then make those 3 conflict so that a container couldn't be in more
> than one of those at any given time.
>
> This seems rather complicated and non-obvious for our users, so I'd
> rather keep things simple and have separate lxc.start.auto and
> lxc.start.disabled config entries.
>

Using attributes instead of group names is fine with me.

>
> lxc-stop sends SIGKILL by default which is usually instantaneous, if
> it's not, that's because of I/O wait on the kernel side which
> parallelization will just make worse.
>

I thought this default has been changed recently, didn't it? According
to the current man page lxc-stop sends SIGPWR to the container, telling
init to enter run level 0, to wait for the childs, and then to exit.

>
> I'm not planning on doing anything more clever than simply doing serial
> start of the containers, waiting for lxc.start.delay if it's present.
>

Using a serial startup procedure for the containers is fine with me.
My major concern was about lxc-stop.

Surely parallel execution would introduce much more complexity, and
most of the users wouldn't notice the difference. I completely agree
that things should be kept simple.


Many thanx
Harri