[lxc-users] lxc.start.order honored in reverse

[Bostjan Skufca]

On 4 March 2015 at 14:48, Jean-Gabriel Gill-Couture <
jeangabriel.gc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is it possible that the order is respected but the first containers are
> just slower to start up?
>

Nope, just checked it again, with longer delays to be able to watch what is
going on. Containers with order 900 and 800 start first, and all the way
down to 100 and 50, which should be started first, but is instead started
last.

I just looked at the code and the issue seems deeper (the order works for
shutting containers down, but there needs to be a discussion what is the
most natural way to handle this - do you start containers in ascending and
stop them in descending order? do both use ascending order?). I'll take
this to lxc-devel mlist.

b.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/pipermail/lxc-users/attachments/20150304/94084b9e/attachment.html>