cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sebastien Goasguen <>
Subject Re: Devcloud 2 - veewee/Vagrant projects
Date Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:44:05 GMT

On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:57 PM, chris snow <> wrote:

> I have started thinking about some options:
> 1)  use packer to convert the devcloud2 veewee definition as a starting point
> 2) create devcloud3 from scratch
> 3) start with an existing packer definition (e.g. [1])
> Do you have a view on which option may be most suitable?

My view would be to start from scratch but of course looking at what has been done.

In an ideal world, I would love to see a packer/vagrant file that would do:

-Ubuntu and CentOS
-Xen and KVM 

That way we can decide on what to build. Of course there might be issues due to the PV/HVM
support in vbox and the OS chosen.
I don't recall what the issue was that made Rohit use Debian (but see,
but ideally it would be good to use stock ubuntu 12.04 or 13.04
I list 13.04 because there seems to be an issue with libvirt in 12.04 in the case that you
want ceph ( Of course ceph on a single node
does not make sense, but for a devcloud3 setup we could imagine setting up ceph in it and
use it as primary storage.

I mention KVM because if one uses VMware workstation than KVM would be an option.

What I am doing these days is taking a veewee bare definition and using veewee-to-packer to
get started with packer. I install chef/salt/puppet agents in the image so that I can use
the 3 of them if I want to.

> If we go with option 2 or 3, do you think debian 7.0 should be used as
> a starting point, or another version such as 7.2 or 7.3?  Or even
> another distro?
> Are these goals still valid for devcloud3?
> - Two network interfaces, host-only adapter so that the VM is
> reachable from host os and a NAT so VMs can access Internet.


> - Can be used both as an all in one box solution like the original
> DevCloud but the mgmt server and other services can run elsewhere (on
> host os).


> - Reduce resource requirements, so one could run it in 1G limit.

Would be great, but remember that systemvm and ttylinux will run within it, so those 4 alone
may use 1G

> - Allow multiple DevCloud VMs hosts.

That would be great. Having some skeleton for multiple devcloud hosts in a vagrant file so
we can deploy "full" clouds.

> - x86 dom0 and xen-i386 so it runs on all host os.
> - Reduce exported appliance (ova) file size.
> - It should be seamless, it should work out of the box.


> Are there any new requirements in addition to the ones discussed in
> this email chain, e.g.
> - vagrant support (in addition to the ova/ovf image)
> - packer and vagrant build environment

In simstack I am trying to provide chef/salt/puppet recipes
for the install. So in devcloud3, I would lay things out so that we can also do those 3 cfg
mgt system in the future. Note that simstack is not devcloud as I am trying to run the simulator
and have to compile from source because there is no simulator package.

> Many thanks,
> Chris
> [1]
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <> wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Rohit Yadav <> wrote:
>>> Thanks for stepping in. That is much needed, in fact I think we should
>>> use something like packer alongwith vagrant/veewee for both devcloud
>>> and systemvmtemplate. Veewee can build vms, packer can export them to
>>> various platforms/formats and a developer could use vagrant for local
>>> devcloud/host automation.
>> I looked into it the other day and I agree we need to revamp this.
>> veewee development and maintenance is going to stop. So we need to prep a packer
>> So yes we should create a packer definition for devcloud3 :) and be able to post-process
it to vagrant.
>>> Regards.
>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:30 AM, chris snow <> wrote:
>>>> I would like to build the devcloud2 image [1] from scratch using
>>>> veewee (or packer) and turn it into a vagrant box.
>>>> There seems to be several versions of Vagrant files and veewee
>>>> definitions in the code base, making it difficult to know which one to
>>>> start from, or whether they are still valid.
>>>> Many thanks,
>>>> Chris
>>>> [1]
> -- 
> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.

View raw message