incubator-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: Review Request: cleanup devcloud creation process
Date Sun, 16 Dec 2012 20:21:19 GMT
I'm running OSX 10.8 too, but using either vagrant forks it fails for me but I think I understand
why it fails for me now;
Chip's fork failed with the reason that vbox 4.2 was not supported, and the upstream fork
failed because of the "with_ssh" option.

I think if Chip can help us pull in latest changes from vagrant upstream and provide drivers
for vbox 4.x, it may work. I checked, so the current upstream git repo has no drivers, I think
somehow they got rid of it.
About the nic issue, the order should not matter, just that I'm not sure what happens to the
instances running on xen, as they would have br0 as default nic to talk to which is nat so
make things tricky.
Nevertheless, host-only is reachable via nat. Can you confirm that the xenbox that is built
on your system works fine as a devcloud appliance with CloudStack?

Regards.

________________________________________
From: James Martin [jmartin@basho.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 10:21 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Review Request: cleanup devcloud creation process

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@citrix.com> wrote:
> For me xenbox build fails because of virtualbox and some vagrant param error which I
was not able to figure out why. It's a different problem for me, I could n't even see the
box being built. I'll try with debian wheezy as well (the devcloud appliance I published was
created out of wheezy).

What OS are you running?  I'm using OSX 10.8, and didn't experience
these issues.  Please post the errors you encountered.

>
> Also, can be switch to the default vagrant repo (https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant)
because maintaining a fork can be a lot of work and avoid using two versions of vagrant which
I saw in deps/.


This is the reason you can't use the default vagrant repo, as outlined
here : http://www.chipchilders.com/blog/2012/8/14/automatically-building-devcloud-images-for-apache-cloudstack.html

"Vagrant requires the use of the Virtual Box Guest Additions for many
of it's features. Unfortunately, we were unable to get the Guest
Additions kernel module to load correctly when the VM booted into the
Xen Server configuration. The puppet provisioner module relies on
VirtualBox shared folders, which don't function without that properly
loaded Guest Additions kernel module. Since we were trying to use the
Vagrant Puppet provisioner, we were stuck. To get around that, Edison
modified the Vagrant core code itself, so that it could use a
"with_ssh" option for it's puppet provisioner to SCP files onto the
VM.

We also had an issue with guest OS identification within Vagrant. Even
though we had added a new OS type (xen), there were problems getting
Vagrant to skip it's attempt to mount shared folders. You can see the
changes that were required in Vagrant if you check out the hacked
version of Vagrant on Github."


> For the basebox, the nic settings are fine. But for xenbox we'll need two nics, nic1:host-only
and nic2:nat.

This will not work with vagrant.  As documented here:
https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant/issues/641:

"The first NIC is always a NAT. Vagrant requires it that way."  Based
on that requirement, we will have to adapt devcloud to use eth0 as NAT
and eth1 as Host Only.


- James

>
> Thank you for your work.
> Rohit
> ________________________________________
> From: James Martin [noreply@reviews.apache.org] On Behalf Of James Martin [jmartin@basho.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:52 PM
> To: Prasanna Santhanam; Rohit Yadav
> Cc: cloudstack; James Martin
> Subject: Re: Review Request: cleanup devcloud creation process
>
>> On Dec. 15, 2012, 3:39 a.m., Rohit Yadav wrote:
>> > Pfew, took me few hours to test and fix few issues.
>> > First of all I want to give you kudos for your work, Kudos!
>> > That said, the patch fails on multiple cases. I'll commit that so we can continue
working on it.
>> > I'm able to create a basebox but vagrant fails on xenbox. Pl. test it at your
end also.
>> > Will try to fix this issue, next week in free time.
>> >
>> > Here are some of my reviews and comments:
>> >
>> > 0. I moved all the stuff in tools/devcloud/src/ and fixed the README.md file
for some of the things which failed for me.
>> > 1. Is there a way we can use the default vagrant release without having to use
a fork?
>> > 2. VirtualBox 4.2 was not supported, can you or Chip help fix vagrant?
>> >
>> > I did a workaround that worked for me:
>> > diff --git a/lib/vagrant/driver/virtualbox.rb b/lib/vagrant/driver/virtualbox.rb
>> > index baf462b..5a1dce2 100644
>> > --- a/lib/vagrant/driver/virtualbox.rb
>> > +++ b/lib/vagrant/driver/virtualbox.rb
>> > @@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ module Vagrant
>> >          @logger.debug("Finding driver for VirtualBox version: #{@version}")
>> >          driver_map   = {
>> >            "4.0" => VirtualBox_4_0,
>> > -          "4.1" => VirtualBox_4_1
>> > +          "4.1" => VirtualBox_4_1,
>> > +          "4.2" => VirtualBox_4_1,
>> >          }
>> >
>> >          driver_klass = nil
>> >
>> > 3. The default basebox has only one NIC, which fails as DevCloud needs to have
>> > two nics; first one should be the host-only one and second one should be the
>> > NAT.
>>
>> Rohit Yadav wrote:
>>     Lastly, one more thing. We should move all the stuff that is not directly related
to CloudStack in separate git repos which would make maintaining them more easy and distribution
as well. But, since the code on devcloud build automation was already within the source code
I'll commit the changes. (upto community to decide on this)
>
> Thanks a lot for taking a look at it.  I too am having an issue with the xenbox build,
it's not able to apt-get some packages.  Is this the same problem you were having?
>
> 1. As I understand it, the reason we have to use chip's fork of vagrant is outlined here:
 http://www.chipchilders.com/blog/2012/8/14/automatically-building-devcloud-images-for-apache-cloudstack.html.
 (We actually use 2 versions of vagrant to get things working properly).
>
> 2. I'll talk to Chip about fixing his fork for Virtualbox 4.2 support.
>
> 3. The basebox does have only one nic, but the devcloud box has 2 nics.  In this case,
eth1 is hostonly, and eth0 is NAT.  The default NIC in vagrant is eth0 and NAT, I could not
find a way to change that, but I'll take another peak.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> - James
>
>
> - James
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/8399/#review14536
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On Dec. 8, 2012, 5:31 p.m., James Martin wrote:
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/8399/
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> (Updated Dec. 8, 2012, 5:31 p.m.)
>>
>>
>> Review request for cloudstack, Prasanna Santhanam and Rohit Yadav.
>>
>>
>> Description
>> -------
>>
>> This diff cleans up the devcloud build process.
>>
>> Please see tools/devcloud/README.md for more information.
>>
>> I also have a fork of cloudstack available with this change:
>>
>> https://github.com/jsmartin/incubator-cloudstack/tree/devcloud-cleanup
>>
>>
>> Diffs
>> -----
>>
>>
>> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8399/diff/
>>
>>
>> Testing
>> -------
>>
>> Built the veewee basebox and the vagrant xenbox.
>> Built a cloudstack vagrant box.
>> Was able to reach cloudstack at http://192.168.56.10:8080/client
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> James Martin
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message