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 Thu, 06 Feb 2014 07:49:05 GMT
I've done some more work on the networking - it would be good if this
could be tested.

I'll leave the issue open until I get some feedback that it looks ok.

Please feel free to add other issues on github if you find other bugs.

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Rajani Karuturi
<Rajani.Karuturi@citrix.com> wrote:
> oopss.. sorry.. didn't look at the issues list on github :)
>
> I will work on the mount issue.
>
> Thanks,
> ~Rajani
>
>
>
> On 05-Feb-2014, at 3:16 pm, chris snow <chsnow123@gmail.com<mailto:chsnow123@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>
> Hi Rajani,
>
> Many thanks for the feedback.
>
> I still have to figure out the network setup - I have created an issue
> on github to track this.
>
> There is also an open issue for the mount problem.
>
> https://github.com/snowch/devcloud/issues?state=open
>
> Please feel free to raise any other defects that you encounter.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Rajani Karuturi
> <Rajani.Karuturi@citrix.com<mailto:Rajani.Karuturi@citrix.com>> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I tried this today on my machine(macbook 7,1)
> It took nearly 1 hr 45 min for packer build+downloads. Once that is done, when i did
a vagrant up, saw the following mount error
> [default] -- /vagrant
> Failed to mount folders in Linux guest. This is usually beacuse
> the "vboxsf" file system is not available. Please verify that
> the guest additions are properly installed in the guest and
> can work properly. The command attempted was:
>
> mount -t vboxsf -o uid=`id -u vagrant`,gid=`getent group vagrant | cut -d: -f3` /vagrant
/vagrant
> mount -t vboxsf -o uid=`id -u vagrant`,gid=`id -g vagrant` /vagrant /vagrant
>
> Also, ssh root@192.168.56.10<mailto:root@192.168.56.10><mailto:root@192.168.56.10>
wasn't working after it is up. I am however able to access it through vagrant ssh. Did the
ip change?
>
> Thanks,
> ~Rajani
>
>
>
> On 05-Feb-2014, at 4:15 am, chris snow <chsnow123@gmail.com<mailto:chsnow123@gmail.com><mailto:chsnow123@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>
> The xapi issue is fixed now.
>
> Next on the list:
>
> - The mysql root passwordless access is broken.
> - Add additional network card.
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:16 PM, chris snow <chsnow123@gmail.com<mailto:chsnow123@gmail.com><mailto:chsnow123@gmail.com>>
wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback Sebastien, it's much appreciated.
>
> I'll investigate in more detail over the next few days...
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com<mailto:runseb@gmail.com><mailto:runseb@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com<mailto:runseb@gmail.com><mailto:runseb@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:25 PM, chris snow <chsnow123@gmail.com<mailto:chsnow123@gmail.com><mailto:chsnow123@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>
> 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 cloned it, the packer builds works and the vagrant export as well.
> I was able to vagrant up/ssh.
>
> I noticed couple things.
>
> 1-the Xen setup. Check Rohit's blog http://bhaisaab.org he has a section on DIY Devcloud,
where he shows how to setup Xen, namely xapi toolstack and creating a echo plugin.I think
that's what you are missing, you can probably add this to your posinstall script
>
> 2-We switched master to java 7, so you should switch to openjdk-7
>
> 3- you might be missing a mysql-python-connector package and you should setup the mysql
password as null (for dev).
>
>
> One more. It looks like there is only one interface (NAT), probably need to play with
the pressed.cfg to add a host only interface:
> https://github.com/snowch/devcloud/blob/master/http/preseed.cfg
>
> This is looking quite nice :)
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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