Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


What do you think of LXD?
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

What do you think of LXD?

Has anybody used LXD and liked it? I am considering migrating some of my systems to LXD but I don't want to take the time to build the packages if it isn't that great.

Comments

  • .

  • YuraYura Member

    ..

  • FlamesRunnerFlamesRunner Member
    edited March 2017

    ...

    sigh

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider

    People are generally more helpful if you make an effort to spell what you need right, at least.

  • sinsin Member

    What do you want to know about it?

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legion_of_Extraordinary_Dancers

    Never seen it, which is surprising because my wife usually likes things like this and forces me to watch them with her.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @Clouvider said:
    People are generally more helpful if you make an effort to spell what you need right, at least.

    LXD exists :) It's more or less a wrapper:

    https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd/

    Francisco

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • @Francisco said:

    @Clouvider said:
    People are generally more helpful if you make an effort to spell what you need right, at least.

    LXD exists :) It's more or less a wrapper:

    https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd/

    Francisco

    From what I recall about reading about it for 5 minutes, it's supposedly somewhat more secure than lxc.

    Thanked by 1Francisco
  • WSSWSS Member

    I'm waiting for lxe.

    Thanked by 1deadbeef
  • How about lxf?

  • WSSWSS Member

    Don't run alpha/testing builds in production.

    Thanked by 2Hxxx deadbeef
  • I'm from the future, lxz is popular here.

    Thanked by 1sayem314
  • WSSWSS Member

    @Jorbox said:
    I'm from the future, lxz is popular here.

    I heard that everything between 1998 and 2016 have been officially stricken from the record books- like Germany did with the 30s and 40s.. any truth to that?

  • If you like buzzwords, read the introduction from Canonical: https://www.ubuntu.com/containers/lxd

    It builds on top of LXC and provides some pretty advanced features like a REST api, snapshots, live migration, a image server and more. It's basically the Docker equivalent for full system containers. Unlike OpenVZ, it works with the mainline Linux kernel and has fewer limitations (nested LXD, Docker, KVM work).

    I'm currently developing a project on top of LXD, and I'm pretty happy with it. Documentation could be a bit better and there's no large ecosystem around it like there is for Docker, but I'm positive these will improve in the future - eventually, people are going to move on from OpenVZ, right?

    Thanked by 1Francisco
  • WSSWSS Member

    @jgillich said:
    eventually, people are going to move on from OpenVZ, right?

    As long as you can throttle the users and get by with overcommitting resources, it will never go away.

    Thanked by 1Francisco
  • WSS said: As long as you can throttle the users and get by with overcommitting resources, it will never go away.

    LXC/LXD can do the same by utilizing cgroups on a mainline kernel. Not that you should, but it's possible.

  • WSSWSS Member

    @jgillich said:

    WSS said: As long as you can throttle the users and get by with overcommitting resources, it will never go away.

    LXC/LXD can do the same by utilizing cgroups on a mainline kernel. Not that you should, but it's possible.

    Where there's a will, I suppose. The fact that although there have been "updates", that OVZ is still pretty much locked to 2.6.x forever drives people nuts, even though there are rarely specific features their $10/yr VPS will ever utilize from a newer kernel except, maybe, a slightly less screwy TCP stahahaha i make joek.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    LXC/LXD doesn't have a decent way to handle storage nor sub quotas so that's a big problem. You can use something like an LVM but that still doesn't pass quota support.

    Francisco

    Thanked by 1WSS
  • WSSWSS Member

    @Francisco any word on those Onion slices? :D

  • Francisco said: LXC/LXD doesn't have a decent way to handle storage nor sub quotas so that's a big problem. You can use something like an LVM but that still doesn't pass quota support.

    Based on this post, disk quotas are supported for ZFS and btrfs. IO throttling seems to be limited to a single value per block device, although it's not clear to me whether it applies to all containers or just a single one.

    Thanked by 2sin Francisco
  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @jgillich said:

    Francisco said: LXC/LXD doesn't have a decent way to handle storage nor sub quotas so that's a big problem. You can use something like an LVM but that still doesn't pass quota support.

    Based on this post, disk quotas are supported for ZFS and btrfs. IO throttling seems to be limited to a single value per block device, although it's not clear to me whether it applies to all containers or just a single one.

    ZFS quotas aren't supported by repquota and such cPanel can't use them. It can limit the users available diskspace, but that's about it.

    BTRFS should never be spoken about for anything short of pipedreaming.

    Francisco

  • bmullanbmullan Member
    edited March 2017

    I use LXD daily as do many others.

    Some get confused with LXC v1 and LXD (re LXC v2). LXC v2 has many enhancements/differences over LXC v1.

    LXD can do almost anything I've tried with it from clustering, to running entire OpenStack in LXD etc.

    There are alot of great example use-cases described by posts on the LXD sub-reddit:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/LXD/

    Also regarding @Francisco's comment about storage handling... Stephane Graber just finished posting new information to his 12 part LXD blog series on LXD about new Storage features. Francisco - check the LXD Github documentation URL below and search for "Storage". For example - "volume.zfs.use_refquota" and "zfs.use_refquota".

    Storage pool configuration keys can be set using the CLI lxc cmd tool with:

    lxc storage set [<remote>:]<pool> <key> <value>
    

    Lastly...

    The LXD Github has a lot of documentation related to configuration.

    https://github.com/lxc/lxd/blob/master/doc/configuration.md

    At the end of each "section" there are CLI examples of how to set/unset any configuration parameter for an LXD container.

    An example command to set a parameter for a "device":

    lxc profile device add [key=value]... where "key" and "value" are described in the above URL "device" section.

    Also, if you use LXD I'd highly recommend subscribe to the lxc-users mail alias as the developers monitor that and answer Q&A daily for both LXC v1 and LXD (LXC v2) questions:

    https://lists.linuxcontainers.org/

    Brian

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    bmullan said: Also regarding @Francisco's comment about storage handling... Stephane Graber just finished posting new information to his 12 part LXD blog series on LXD about new Storage features.

    Not seeing it :( Got a link?

    If it's the usual "BTRFS/ZFS are the way to go" then that still doesn't help people needing sub quotas (quotas for their own users like cPanel/Plesk/etc). Not unless there was some miracle change in either platform to support repquota/etc.

    That isn't LXD's job to implement, that's on EXT4/XFS to figure out, just pointing it out as a blocker for many.

    Francisco

  • moonmartinmoonmartin Member
    edited March 2017

    It takes years for these things to mature. Everything I have read says LXC v1 is full of security holes making it unsuitable for public hosting type applications and LXC v2/LXD is still experimental.

    Also, it's mostly only Canonical supporting LXC/LXD from what I can tell. Companies like Redhat don't seem to be playing along.

    If I am incorrect in any of these assumptions please let me know. I don't have any bias other than wanting to pick which direction I go forward from OVZ6. So far OVZ7 still looks like the clear winner for public hosting. Been doing a bit of testing with it on Virtualizor and it seems to just work. LXC v1 also works on Virtualizor but not secure for using in a public hosting application .

    I would test LXCv2 and LXD but there is no viable hosting panel supporting it yet.

  • bmullanbmullan Member
    edited March 2017

    @Francisco said:

    BTRFS should never be spoken about for anything short of pipedreaming.

    Francisco

    Francisco the only major problem that BTRFS has is with Raid 5/6 which they acknowledge and document pretty thoroughly.

    I've been using BTRFS Raid 10 on multiple 4-4TB disk servers for 3-4 years without any problems. I also use BTRFS on my single drive laptop for the past 2+ years without a single problem.

    A few ZFS advantages over BTRFS:

    Perhaps more mature and reliable (though depends on distro/implementation)
    
    RAIDz3 for three disks of parity
    
    Ability to share block-level "subvolumes" to use as raw disks for VMs
    

    Some advantages of BTRFS over ZFS:

    Dynamically (re live) reconfiguring your array (switch from RAID 10 to whatever)
    
    Less wasted space when you upgrade / replace (depends on RAID level, but if you   
    upgrade two of your 1.5 TB disks to 2 TB disks and re-balance, you will have an extra 
    1TB).   
    
    BTRFS lets you mix different Drive sizes and still make use of all available disks space.
    ZFS will restrict your vdev to the size of the smallest constituent device,
    
    BTRFS will let you expand storage dynamically/live by adding a new disk and it doesn't  
    even have to be the same size disk.    With ZFS it's important to understand that you 
    cannot add hard drives to a VDEV.   To expand the storage capacity of your ZFS pool, 
    you need to add extra VDEVs. And _because each VDEV needs to take care of its own 
    redundancy_, you also need to buy extra drives for parity.
    
    Ability to defragment files
    
    Ability to correct mistakes in your disk layout.  For example - did you know there is a  
    command to add a single-disk vdev in zfs - which ruins redundancy across the entire 
    pool and can not be corrected except for copying the data off and starting over - the 
    cmd differs from the cmd to replace a disk by about one letter?  So a simple mistype in 
    a zfs cmd can make for a bad day too.
    
  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    bmullan said: Francisco the only major problem that BTRFS has is with Raid 5/6 which they acknowledge and document pretty thoroughly.

    You're one of the few lucky ones that are riding it out then since we used BTRFS for our backups (at the time it was mostly just rsync based) and it was nothing but a gongshow. It's possible we were an edge case due to the amount of metadata work we were doing but we must've had a half dozen full arrays lost due to one bug or another.

    ZOL is mostly good but will be on point once they address their ARC issues.

    Francisco

Sign In or Register to comment.