juju deployed service, machine goes away
david.cheney at canonical.com
Mon Dec 2 22:06:53 UTC 2013
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 8:47 AM, David Britton
<david.britton at canonical.com> wrote:
> Hi --
> If I terminate a machine out from underneath juju, how do I correctly inform
> juju that machine is no longer there?
The current solution we have for this is 'please don't do that, juju
needs to own machines' ,but we understand that this can easily happen
outside of your control.
At the moment that will probably leave your juju instance with a
phantom reference to a machine. Worse, if this machine was created
without a service unit assigned, ie via juju add-machine, it may
attract a unit which will never be deployed (because the machine has
I say at the moment because this is being worked on as we speak and
may already be fixed in 1.16.4 or later. You should at least upgrade
to this release.
If it is fixed in 1.16.4, when the release notes are available they
will mention a new option on destroy-machine to forcefully remove it
from the database. Like all --force style options, this should be used
with care and not enshrined into regular use.
> Is there a way to gracefully terminate from the service unit/machine
> perspective (equivalent of shutdown to AWS or Nova, it will destroy the
> David Britton <david.britton at canonical.com>
> Juju mailing list
> Juju at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
More information about the Juju