cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: Devcloud 2 - veewee/Vagrant projects
Date Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:18:10 GMT
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
>

Mime
View raw message