cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From chris snow <chsnow...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Devcloud 2 - veewee/Vagrant projects
Date Fri, 31 Jan 2014 17:25:50 GMT
I finally got the packer built devcloud box to boot with vagrant, but
running 'xe vm-list' in it results in:

Error: Connection refused (calling connect )

I'm going to do some more investigation, but could take a while as I
get to learn xen.

To make things easy while working on this I've created a github project here [2]

I've added the problem above as an issue on github.

---
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/XenServer/VirtualBox#Installing_XCP
[2] https://github.com/snowch/devcloud

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:57 PM, chris snow <chsnow123@gmail.com> 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 http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/),
but ideally it would be good to use stock ubuntu 12.04 or 13.04
>
> DevCloud is just an appliance that facilitates a virtual host
> (hypervisor) for development with CloudStack. So, I chose Debian
> because well it's the best in terms of packages, stability, security
> and is usually rock solid. Ubuntu at the time had a networking issue
> that did not let me use xenbr0 for use over host-only network, I did
> not invest much time on it but rather switched to Debian.
>
> I suggest we stick to Debian as it would be least painful for anyone
> IMO and the problem we're trying to solve is to enable developers have
> a robust (possibly multi-vm) hypervisor host in box (vm) over a
> desktop virtualization platform (virtualbox, kvm etc.)
>
> (IMHO -- I wonder if you've tried latest rock-solid Fedora 20, Ubuntu
> should have been least recommended distro by now don't use it please).
>
>> I list 13.04 because there seems to be an issue with libvirt in 12.04 in the case
that you want ceph (http://ceph.com/docs/master/rbd/rbd-cloudstack/). 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.
>
> Why not build libvirt version we want? In case we want to stay updated
> I can help you with Fedora 20 based base or Arch based base for
> devcloud. I've been using Fedora for some months now and I guess if
> someone want latest and greatest but want to avoid a lot of sysadmin
> work as with Arch Linux just go with Fedora. Linux users (new and old)
> have more or less been inclined to Debian because yum-based distros
> were in really bad shape few years ago and that's when like others I
> shifted to using Ubuntu. But it's not the case anymore and Ubuntu has
> tons of problems now and rpm-based distros deserver one shot.
>
>>
>> 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?
>
> Feel free to choose whatever distro gives us all the tools and whatnot
> to solve our problem. Distros and tools are not the problem having a
> host in a box for CloudStack development is the problem.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> This I guess will be most appreciated and useful for developers,
> probably first time users and for demo. Last time for some reason, I
> was unable to have Internet reach VMs inside DevCloud.
>
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>> - 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).
>
> This already works with last DevCloud.
>
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>> - Reduce resource requirements, so one could run it in 1G limit.
>
> +1 though I think size is not a major issue and reduce image size is a
> good to have thing.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> +1
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> +1
>
> Chris, appreciate you taking time working on this.
>
> Regards.
>
>>
>> yes
>>
>>>
>>> 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 https://github.com/runseb/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] https://github.com/opscode/bento/tree/master/packer
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Rohit Yadav <bhaisaab@apache.org> 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 version
>>>>
>>>> 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 <chsnow123@gmail.com>
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] http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
>>> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>>



-- 
Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
http://lnkd.in/cw5k69

Mime
View raw message