juju deployed service, machine goes away
david.britton at canonical.com
Mon Dec 2 22:09:14 UTC 2013
Thanks David --
I think it's currently targetted at 1.16.5:
I'll be following it there. :)
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 3:06 PM, David Cheney <david.cheney at canonical.com>wrote:
> 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
> > 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
> been removed).
> 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
> > instance)?
> > Thanks!
> > --
> > David Britton <david.britton at canonical.com>
> > --
> > Juju mailing list
> > Juju at lists.ubuntu.com
> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
David Britton <david.britton at canonical.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Juju