cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2013 10:31:40 GMT
Hey Chiradeep, Phong sorry, I have little to no connectivity at the moment.
 This mail was written yesterday before Phong's response and just got
pushed out now when I got online. Excuse the noise.


On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Chiradeep,
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <
> Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Any updates / help?
>>
>>
> Just as an update Phong has made some progress creating LXC based virtual
> machines via the libvirt interface. I myself have not caught up to him,
> just started stepping through code to see how it would work.
>
> We have weekly meetings on Tuesdays just to see where we are. I'll see
> about getting a formal update to the list by then.
>
>
>> I'd like to point out that the secondary storage process
>> (NfsSecondaryStorageResource) can run outside a system vm as well (bare
>> metal).
>> It has a "inSystemVm" flag that turns on/off various things.
>>
>>
> This is good to know. I know Phong and I both had some questions about
> storage matters.
>
>
>> Alternatively you can run LocalSecondaryStorageResource instead -- this
>> executes inside the management server and expects the NFS server to be
>> mounted on the management server.
>> But not all features are supported (esp. zone-to-zone copy).
>>
>> With the storage refactor, you may not even need either resource as long
>> as all you need is to copy images to primary storage from some store
>> (e.g., a web server).
>>
>>
>>
> Thanks for the heads up and offer to help. After meeting with Phong next
> week we'll report back to the list.
>
> Regards,
> Alex
>
>
>> On 1/8/13 4:42 PM, "Alex Karasulu" <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Phong Nguyen <pnguyen@gilt.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thank you all for your responses.
>> >>
>> >> Chip: I have started a design document and will keep it updated with
>> our
>> >> discussions.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LXC+Support+in+Clo
>> >>udstack
>> >>
>> >> Chiradeep: I think option #2 as you have suggested is a good idea. I'll
>> >>be
>> >> looking at this part soon in my dev setup, thanks for the advice.
>> >>
>> >> Alex: Would be great to work with you if you are interested.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Yes, I'll contact you offline for minor coordination details and every so
>> >often we can report back to the mailing list.
>> >
>> >
>> >> In terms of collaborating, since I'm a non-committer, would the best
>> >>option
>> >> be to develop on github? I'm assuming branch commit privileges is only
>> >>for
>> >> committers?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yep but with git it makes little difference.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> -Phong
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Chiradeep Vittal <
>> >> Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 1/7/13 1:17 PM, "Alex Karasulu" <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Alex Karasulu <
>> akarasulu@apache.org>
>> >> > >wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Alex Karasulu
>> >> > >><akarasulu@apache.org>wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>> Hi Phong,
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Phong Nguyen <pnguyen@gilt.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>> Hi,
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>> We are interested in adding LXC support to Cloudstack.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> I've also been interested in Cloudstack support for LXC.
I
>> >>checked a
>> >> > >>>few
>> >> > >>> days ago for it and was disappointed when I could not
find it but
>> >> found
>> >> > >>> support for it in OpenStack instead :P. I wanted to inquire
about
>> >> > >>>adding
>> >> > >>> LXC support thinking this might be a good starting point
for my
>> >> getting
>> >> > >>> involved in the code. At this point, I have nothing further
to
>> >> > >>>contribute
>> >> > >>> besides the link you already found, but I thought if others
saw
>> >>more
>> >> > >>>people
>> >> > >>> interested then LXC support might be considered.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >> Here's a bit more chatter on this topic but as we see it's
not
>> been
>> >> > >> implemented. Rip for the picking ...
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> http://goo.gl/x60At
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >s/Rip/Ripe/ damn autocorrect on pad.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>>  I've searched around
>> >> > >>>> for container support for Cloudstack and was able
to find one
>> >> posting
>> >> > >>>> related to OpenVZ (over a year ago):
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28030821
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> BTW OpenVZ is great stuff but I've found the fact that
you need a
>> >> > >>>custom
>> >> > >>> Kernel a bit of a problem. LXC is much better in this
sense since
>> >> it's
>> >> > >>> already present in every kernel past 2.6.26 (or 2.6.29?)
but
>> >>that's
>> >> > >>>besides
>> >> > >>> the point of this thread. Sorry for digressing.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> Is there any current, on-going, or future work planned
in this
>> >>area?
>> >> > >>>Are
>> >> > >>>> there any architectural changes since then that would
affect the
>> >> > >>>> suggestions in this posting? Any other suggestions
greatly
>> >> > >>>>appreciated.
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>> I too am interested in these details.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> Thanks,
>> >> > >>> Alex
>> >> > >>>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I like the concept of more hypervisors being supported!
>> >> > Having said that, the most perplexing thing that stumps people on
>> >>such a
>> >> > quest
>> >> > is the need to have a system vm image for the new hypervisor
>> >> >
>> >> > There's a couple of approaches for this
>> >> > 1. Assume a multi-hypervisor zone with enough XS/KVM/VMWare
>> >>hypervisors
>> >> to
>> >> > run
>> >> > the standard system vm image
>> >> > 2. Make the system vm optional. This requires some code changes (not
>> >> major)
>> >> >   - make the console proxy optional
>> >> >   - run the secondary storage daemon on baremetal (next to the
>> >>management
>> >> > server)
>> >> > Option #2 will suffice for running vms without complex network
>> >>services.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Best Regards,
>> >-- Alex
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> -- Alex
>



-- 
Best Regards,
-- Alex

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message