cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chiradeep Vittal <Chiradeep.Vit...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:53:57 GMT
Looks like good progress. Although it looks like KVM and LXC share a lot,
I wouldn't modify the kvm plugin, but rather extract out some common bits
into a LibvirtAgentBase or something like that. And then create a new LXC
plugin based off of that.

+Edison, Wido, Marcus, Kelven, Donal for more suggestions

As far as system vms go, I think you've got some good ideas there.

On 1/31/13 7:20 PM, "Phong Nguyen" <pnguyen@gilt.com> wrote:

>Hi Chiradeep,
>
>I've checked in initial code that is able to spin up an LXC container from
>the Cloudstack UI. I could definitely use some review on this and if I'm
>doing anything majorly wrong, it would be good to know sooner ;)
>
>In development, I used your recommendation and ran the
>NfsSecondaryStorageResource on my laptop to test and debug code for
>downloading templates. Worked great and easier than trying to keep dual
>KVM
>+ LXC in development.
>
>My full test setup right now involves a management server + KVM + LXC. I'm
>using the KVM host to run the System VMs. After the SSVM spins up, I log
>in
>and swap out the cloud jars to run my dev code. I'm also using the KVM
>router VM for dhcp and dns.
>
>How should we handle the System VMs? Does it make sense to create a System
>VM for LXC?
>
>I have updated the wiki page with more details:
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LXC+Support+in+Clou
>dstack
>
>Thanks,
>Phong
>
>
>On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <
>Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Any updates / help?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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).
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message