James Beedy jamesbeedy at gmail.com
Fri Jun 2 13:42:41 UTC 2017

I think the primary advantage being less clutter to the end user. The difference between the end user have to bootstrap and control things from inside the vm vs from their host. For some reason this small change made some of my users who were previously not really catching on, far more apt to jump in. I personally like it because these little vms go further when they don't have the controller on them as well. @jameinel totally, possibly I'll add the bridge bits in place of the lxd-proxy in that write up, or possibly in another.


> On Jun 2, 2017, at 12:56 AM, John Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
> Interesting. I wouldn't have thought to use a manually added machine to use JAAS to deploy applications to your local virtualbox. Is there a reason this is easier than just "juju bootstrap lxd" from inside the VM?
> I suppose our default lxd provider puts the new containers on a NAT bridge, though you can reconfigure 'lxdbr0' to bridge your 'eth0' as well.
> John
> =:->
>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:33 AM, James Beedy <jamesbeedy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> https://medium.com/@jamesbeedy/using-jaas-to-deploy-lxd-containers-to-virtualbox-vms-on-os-x-a06a8046756a
>> --
>> Juju-dev mailing list
>> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju/attachments/20170602/7db86cdd/attachment.html>

More information about the Juju mailing list