| === andrewsmedina_ is now known as andrewsmedina | ||
| _mup_ | juju/enhanced-relation-spec r20 committed by jim.baker@canonical.com | 05:13 |
|---|---|---|
| _mup_ | Address review points | 05:13 |
| _mup_ | juju/enhanced-relation-spec r21 committed by jim.baker@canonical.com | 05:29 |
| _mup_ | Remove enhance, important, and flexible word usage | 05:29 |
| _mup_ | juju/enhanced-relation-spec r22 committed by jim.baker@canonical.com | 05:41 |
| _mup_ | Clarify relation-info command | 05:41 |
| _mup_ | juju/force-upgrade r461 committed by kapil.thangavelu@canonical.com | 05:59 |
| _mup_ | unit agent forced upgrade support | 05:59 |
| _mup_ | juju/force-upgrade r462 committed by kapil.thangavelu@canonical.com | 06:20 |
| _mup_ | dont execute upgrade hooks on a forced upgrade | 06:20 |
| dylanvee | Hi all, just discovered juju and I think it's really cool. Out of curiosity, could you run juju with a local provider (lxc containers) in production? | 07:58 |
| dylanvee | i.e. use the local provider feature but expose the services to the world instead of for development. | 07:59 |
| hazmat | dylanvee, its not the intended usage, but sure you could, you'd have to bridge the networking by hand though | 08:00 |
| dylanvee | hazmat: Cool. In that sense it seems like a really nice layer on top of lxc, which is what I was looking for | 08:01 |
| hazmat | dylanvee, cool, some people use it as a nice layer on top of ec2 ;-) | 08:01 |
| dylanvee | hazmat: You could do juju within juju, use it to provision ec2 instances which contain many lxc instances :) | 08:02 |
| dylanvee | hazmat: fantastic project though, glad I came across it! | 08:02 |
| hazmat | dylanvee, indeed some of the charm testing does just that | 08:02 |
| hazmat | er. automated testing that is | 08:03 |
| dylanvee | kind of like https://github.com/Atalanta/cucumber-chef | 08:03 |
| === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan | ||
| _mup_ | juju/increase-session-timeout r449 committed by kapil.thangavelu@canonical.com | 08:38 |
| _mup_ | merge trunk | 08:38 |
| === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away | ||
| === Leseb_ is now known as Leseb | ||
| === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan | ||
| === marrusl_ is now known as marrusl | ||
| jcastro | SpamapS: you going to this? http://charmschoolsv.eventbrite.com/ | 15:53 |
| jcastro | SAY YES. | 15:53 |
| negronjl | jcastro: can you give me the details of the webinar to see if I can check it out as well ? | 16:19 |
| SpamapS | jcastro: I am if we can get the travel approved | 16:19 |
| negronjl | jcastro: it would be a good idea so i can learn how the masters do the charm school :) | 16:19 |
| _mup_ | juju/refactor-machine-agent r460 committed by jim.baker@canonical.com | 17:10 |
| _mup_ | Merged trunk | 17:10 |
| _mup_ | juju/robust-test-removed-service-unit r460 committed by jim.baker@canonical.com | 17:12 |
| _mup_ | Merged upstream | 17:12 |
| === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away | ||
| _mup_ | Bug #949292 was filed: Redeploying a charm with symbolic links fails <juju:New> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/949292 > | 19:03 |
| _mup_ | juju/trunk r471 committed by kapil.thangavelu@canonical.com | 21:12 |
| _mup_ | merge add-maas-provider. New juju machine provider for MaaS [a=allenap,julian-edwards][r=jimbaker,hazmat][f=939552] | 21:12 |
| _mup_ | juju/upgrade-sym-link r469 committed by kapil.thangavelu@canonical.com | 21:15 |
| _mup_ | use unqualified relative as well | 21:15 |
| _mup_ | juju/trunk r472 committed by kapil.thangavelu@canonical.com | 21:17 |
| _mup_ | merge upgrade-sym-link, remove previous symlink targets before extracting new ones [r=bcsaller][f=941873] | 21:17 |
| _mup_ | juju/trunk r473 committed by kapil.thangavelu@canonical.com | 21:19 |
| _mup_ | merge bool-and-validate-defaults. New boolean service config option, service defaults are validated during charm parse [r=bcsaller,jimbaker][f=885551] | 21:19 |
| _mup_ | juju/deploy-upgrade r459 committed by kapil.thangavelu@canonical.com | 21:26 |
| _mup_ | remove some debug cruft | 21:26 |
| marcoceppi | Sweet, booleans! | 21:34 |
| SpamapS | marcoceppi: blimey, NERD ALERT | 22:03 |
| dylanvee | How is the stability of juju on 11.10? Ready for production use? | 23:38 |
| dylanvee | I noticed in the docs that it might not be, but I wanted to see if that's since changed. | 23:39 |
| SpamapS | 11.10? No | 23:39 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: the version in 11.10 has a lot of problems. We haven't been able to update it because there is no way to test proposed updates. | 23:39 |
| dylanvee | SpamapS: What about older releases? | 23:39 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: the version in precise is much better.. though I still recommend that people use the PPA version for the best results. | 23:39 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: juju did not exist prior to 11.10 | 23:39 |
| dylanvee | SpamapS: Ah yes, ok. | 23:40 |
| SpamapS | well, it existed when 11.04 was released, but not in a very useful form. :) | 23:40 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: only recently the PPA version has gained some nice features, like being able to restart the agents. :) | 23:40 |
| dylanvee | SpamapS: I see, thanks :) | 23:40 |
| dylanvee | Also, from reading the docs it looks like when an ec2 instance is provisioned lxc containers are used within that to start units, is that correct? | 23:41 |
| dylanvee | Previously I had thought that lxc was only for the local mode | 23:41 |
| dylanvee | But now I'm interested because I'd like to enforce lxc resource usage limits on my charms | 23:41 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: no thats not done | 23:45 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: there's a thought that we might do that in the future, but right now the complexity of the network configuration would be rather high. | 23:45 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: lxc works inside LXC (In theory) sor you should be able to use LXC freely. | 23:46 |
| dylanvee | SpamapS: you mean for the local provider mode? | 23:46 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: though.. with it being the cloud and all.. perhaps just choosing the right instance size is a better option? | 23:46 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: you could use lxc containers in a charm. it shouldn't be a problem. | 23:46 |
| dylanvee | SpamapS: My goal is to have kind of an elastic fleet of lxc containers that can run untrusted user code. Juju seems like a possible fit for that | 23:47 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: lxc is no better than chroot for containing untrusted code | 23:48 |
| dylanvee | SpamapS: it adds a lot more isolation, no? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system-level_virtualization#Implementations | 23:48 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: there's a goal to get it better than chroot using a combination of better namespace restrictions on some things, and apparmor. But its not there yet. | 23:48 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: a little bit more isolation, yes. But ultimately, its still vulnerable to most of the same jail breaks as chroot. | 23:49 |
| dylanvee | SpamapS: Oh, that's disappointing…I know lxc + chroot are the basis for what Heroku is doing | 23:49 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: they also don't allow the flexibility that juju does.. because they can't if they're going to keep using LXC | 23:51 |
| SpamapS | http://www.suse.com/documentation/sles11/singlehtml/lxc_quickstart/lxc_quickstart.html | 23:52 |
| SpamapS | "LXC is not secure" | 23:52 |
| SpamapS | http://berrange.com/posts/2011/09/27/getting-started-with-lxc-using-libvirt/ | 23:52 |
| SpamapS | "What you’re gaining here is not security, but a rather way to manage resource utilization of everything spawned from that initial process." | 23:52 |
| dylanvee | SpacemapS: Well, to put a finer point on it I wanna host a bunch of ssh accounts that won't stomp all over the machine | 23:52 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: give them all a t1.micro then. | 23:53 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: if you don't trust the user.. you can't trust containers to keep them from abusing the system. | 23:53 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: note that nested KVM is coming. :) | 23:53 |
| dylanvee | SpacemapS: I'm definitely considering that, hopefully Amazon is pretty liberal with requests to have more than 20 ec2 instances | 23:54 |
| dylanvee | SpacemapS: ooh, i'll have to look into that :) | 23:54 |
| SpamapS | So as soon as there is an openstack cloud provider using KVM on precise.. you'll be able to run nested KVM vms inside their instances. | 23:54 |
| SpamapS | dylanvee: SpamapS, not SpacemepS | 23:54 |
| dylanvee | SpamapS: Sorry haha. Well thank you, I must go but I appreciate your help! :) | 23:54 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!