Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "msg00620".
Did you mean:
msg00020
2015 Jul 14
2
So why does "destroy" not actually destroy?
I thought it odd that if I have a running VM and I do "virsh destroy" it results in a VM that is "shut off". To ACTUALLY destroy a VM, you have to follow that with "undefine". Could someone elaborate on how we ended up with these slightly confusing semantics?
2015 Jul 14
0
Re: So why does "destroy" not actually destroy?
...nging this is not feasible way.
What might be, is to create less invasive aliases. But we can't make
'destroy' command to go away."
Also see response from Eric Blake[2] (and others on that thread) on that
thread:
[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-June/msg00620.html
-- "Request to rename 'destroy' to something milder"
[2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-June/msg00656.html
--
/kashyap