[Lxc-users] limiting RAM usage and disk space usage

[Michael H. Warfield]

Sorry, I should have added an example...

Below...

On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 22:18 -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote: 
> On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 18:29 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: 
> > Quoting Gordon Henderson (gordon at drogon.net):
> > > On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Quoting Gordon Henderson (gordon at drogon.net):
> > > >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Siju George <sgeorge.ml at gmail.com> writes:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> 1) how do I limit the RAM usage of a container?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In lxc.conf(5):
> > > >>>
> > > >>>    lxc.cgroup.memory.limit_in_bytes = 256M
> > > >>>    lxc.cgroup.memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes = 1G
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> 2) how do I limit the disk usage of a container ?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Ensure the rootfs is a dedicated filesystem (e.g. an LVM LV), and limit
> > > >>> its size accordingly.
> > > >>
> > > >> Finally, a use for LVM....
> > > >>
> > > >> And here was me about to embark on using filesystems in files loopback
> > > >> mounted...
> > > >
> > > > That should also work, just a bit slower, right?
> > > 
> > > I don't know, really. I use loopback mounted filesystems for other things 
> > > and I don't really notice much slowdowns compared to the native 
> > > filesystem, but I've never benchmarked it.
> > > 
> > > It is some years since I looked at LVM and I wasn't impressed then so 
> > > stopped thinking about it and used something else (I was looking at 
> > > snapshot abilities at the time) I build systems for a purpose so rarely 
> > > have the need to do the only thing LVM might be handy for - ie. resizing a 
> > > volume so it just doesn't fgure in my systems, but maybe this is a valid 
> > > use now.
> 
> > It seems to me that a little extension to lxc-create which creates
> > the container inside a loopback fs would be pretty neat.
> 
> Wouldn't simply adding the rootfs to the fstab conf with the file system
> image and the "-o loop" option do it?  I would think it would.  I
> haven't tried it in lxc but I do it all the time just for general
> mounting and day to day work.

So this is an excerpt from one of my LXC VM's fstab (I normally use an
explicit bind mount for them):

/srv/lxc/private/1004 /srv/lxc/rootfs    none bind 0 0

Now...  Wouldn't this work as well?  Untested:

/srv/lxc/private/disk.image /srv/lxc/rootfs    none loop 0 0

Seems to me that if the bind option works the loop option should as
well.


> > -serge

Regards,
Mike
-- 
Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 |  mhw at WittsEnd.com
   /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/          | (678) 463-0932 |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
   NIC whois: MHW9          | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0x674627FF        | possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/pipermail/lxc-users/attachments/20101202/02f3c63e/attachment.pgp>