cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rajani Karuturi <>
Subject Re: Devcloud 2 - veewee/Vagrant projects
Date Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:20:44 GMT
oopss.. sorry.. didn’t look at the issues list on github :)

I will work on the mount issue.


On 05-Feb-2014, at 3:16 pm, chris snow <<>>

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.

Please feel free to raise any other defects that you encounter.

Many thanks,


On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Rajani Karuturi
<<>> 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@<mailto:root@><mailto:root@>
wasn't working after it is up. I am however able to access it through vagrant ssh. Did the
ip change?


On 05-Feb-2014, at 4:15 am, chris snow <<><>>

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 <<><>>
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 <<><>>

On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <<><>>

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

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 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:

This is looking quite nice :)

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


On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Rohit Yadav <> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <> wrote:

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

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 ( 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.


- 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.


- 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.


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.


Chris, appreciate you taking time working on this.



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,



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 version

So yes we should create a packer definition for devcloud3 :) and be able to post-process it
to vagrant.


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,



Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.

Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.

Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.

Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.

Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message