cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Devcloud 2 - veewee/Vagrant projects
Date Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:06:55 GMT

On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:25 PM, chris snow <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
> 


Mime
View raw message