* babbageclunk goes for a run | 02:04 | |
thumper | otp | 04:02 |
---|---|---|
axw | thumper: robot again | 04:17 |
thumper | it normally settles down | 04:18 |
thumper | not sure why it does this | 04:18 |
thumper | axw, jam: I'm going | 04:24 |
babbageclunk | axw: ping? | 04:47 |
axw | babbageclunk: pong | 05:05 |
babbageclunk | axw: hey - just tried an lxc-lxd upgrade with an IS chap - it returned an error about unknown config key lxd.hook.mount | 05:07 |
babbageclunk | axw: how do you think I should handle that? | 05:07 |
babbageclunk | I haven't been able to find anything on lxd mount hooks on the web. | 05:08 |
axw | babbageclunk: lxd.hook.mount? or lxc.hook.mount? | 05:08 |
babbageclunk | axw: oops, the latter | 05:09 |
axw | babbageclunk: can you check what the hook is? I haven't come across that one in my testing | 05:09 |
babbageclunk | From here https://linuxcontainers.org/lxc/manpages/man5/lxc.container.conf.5.html it's a script that runs after mounting is done but before pivot_root, whatever that is. | 05:10 |
axw | babbageclunk: yeah, this is on bootstack? I think I found a charm that's setting that in lxc config | 05:11 |
babbageclunk | axw: yup - I think they're using it to set static routes in the containers. | 05:12 |
=== frankban|afk is now known as frankban | ||
axw | rogpeppe1: sorry, my PR is a bit messy. I would appreciate your thoughts on the general approach | 10:14 |
axw | it started out as a targeted PR, then morphed along the way | 10:14 |
rogpeppe1 | axw: i just looked at it in passing tbh. | 10:14 |
rogpeppe1 | axw: i don't really understand it, i'm afraid, or quite what the eventual motivation is | 10:14 |
axw | rogpeppe1: ok. motivations are in the description, which I take I didn't express well :) | 10:15 |
axw | rogpeppe1: gotta eat dinner and then go out, will try again tomorrow | 10:16 |
rogpeppe1 | axw: ok, i think i understand the motivation a bit more now | 10:18 |
rogpeppe1 | axw: but... if we moved to something like Raft, would we really keep all the Op crap? | 10:18 |
axw | rogpeppe1: not the underlying ones, no. but the high level operations, yes - they're the ones that would map to log entries | 10:19 |
axw | rogpeppe1: i.e. DestroyUnitOperation et al. would be made serializable, and would be a log entry | 10:19 |
axw | that's my vague idea atm anyway | 10:19 |
rogpeppe1 | axw: ok, that seems reasonable | 10:20 |
axw | there'd need to be another sort of entry for ops in a transaction | 10:20 |
rogpeppe1 | axw: but for mongo, i'm not entirely convinced that arbitrary operations can be composed | 10:20 |
axw | rogpeppe1: no, they can't, but we do it already... :) | 10:21 |
rogpeppe1 | axw: this will only make it worse, right? | 10:21 |
rogpeppe1 | axw: because people will *think* they can compose a NewService op with a DestroyUnit op, for example | 10:22 |
axw | rogpeppe1: hmm, I'm not sure. I guess it would encourage it for future operations. for existing ones, I don't think they're going to be any worse | 10:22 |
axw | I mean State.AddApplication adds both application and unit ops; if we compose them outside, yo uget the same result | 10:22 |
rogpeppe1 | axw: anyway, i'd like to see a more focused version of the PR so that it's clear what changes are as a result of the introduction of ModelTransaction | 10:23 |
axw | rogpeppe1: ok, will try and do that tomorrow | 10:23 |
rogpeppe1 | axw: yup, that's true for AddApplication specifically, and it's tested that way | 10:23 |
axw | fair point. bounded badness | 10:24 |
rogpeppe1 | axw: but i'm concerned that if we provide arbitrary composition, that things will fail easily | 10:24 |
rogpeppe1 | axw: also, it's very easy to blow the txn doc size limit | 10:24 |
rogpeppe1 | axw: (we already do in some cases) | 10:24 |
* axw out | 10:27 | |
=== frankban is now known as frankban|afk |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!