Oh awesome. That is really neat the flexibility. <div class="gmail_quote">On Mar 21, 2014 10:22 PM, "John Meinel" <<a href="mailto:john@arbash-meinel.com">john@arbash-meinel.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> You can always do "juju deploy --to 3" to deploy directly to machine 3 on the bare metal. I was just mentioning that you can also do KVM or LXC containers on top of bare metal. John =:-> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Brian Wawok <<a href="mailto:bwawok@gmail.com">bwawok@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > So --to:kvm is as close to bare metal as we can get? What is the > performance implications of a single KVM vm on a bare metal (vs if we had > done a direct to metal install). > > Brian > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:24 PM, John Meinel <<a href="mailto:john@arbash-meinel.com">john@arbash-meinel.com</a>> > wrote: >> >> I would actually just use MaaS + LXC or KVM virtualization. >> You should be able to bring up a MaaS environment, and then do: >> >> juju deploy NEWSERVICE --to lxc:10 >> >> And Juju will create a new LXC container on machine 10 and deploy the >> NEWSERVICE into it. >> >> That gives you all the "give me baremetal" when I want it, and it >> gives you container separation as well. >> >> (You should also be able to do "juju deploy foo --to kvm:12" for times >> when you have a Charm that needs direct device access.) >> >> John >> =:-> >> > </blockquote></div>