Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "msg00656".
Did you mean:
msg00056
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?
...ay."
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