incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anthony Xu <Xuefei...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Date Thu, 13 Dec 2012 23:11:25 GMT
XenServer supports grub2 since 5.6 fp1 version.


Anthony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 3:00 PM
> To: CloudStack DeveloperList
> Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
> 
> Yes, it is for performance reasons.
> CentOS
>  -has a different place for network init scripts
>  -has a different initialization scheme (chkconfig vs LSB init)
>  -has a different place to initialize iptables
> 
> Centos also may use GRUB-legacy vs GRUB2 for booting.
> The current systemvm uses GRUB-legacy since XS 5.6 only supported
> GRUB-legacy, but it might be time to move on.
> 
> A more suitable systemvm build script might be based on veewee/vagrant,
> along with qemu-img to do the final conversion to vhd/qcow2
> 
> --
> Chiradeep
> 
> On 12/13/12 10:29 AM, "Anthony Xu" <Xuefei.Xu@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> >32-bit PV might have better performance than 64-bit PV on XEN,
> >In 64 bit mode, there are only ring 0 and ring 3, both Guest OS and
> guest
> >application are running on ring3 , application system call needs to be
> >trapped into hypervisor and then be injected into guest OS.
> >In 32 bit mode, there are ring 0, 1, 2, 3.   Guest OS is running on
> ring
> >1, application is running on ring 3, hypervisor doesn't need to trap
> >system call.
> >
> >That might be one of reasons dom0 is 32 bit in XenServer/XCP.
> >
> >Anthony
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:20 AM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
> >>
> >> The choice of 32-bit OS may be to support legacy servers, but I
> really
> >> don't know.
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
> >> Sent: 13 December 2012 4:50 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
> >>
> >> I did.. reviewed buildsystemvm.sh script - seems self-explanatory.
> >>
> >> There are 2 major parts to this task as I see it.
> >>
> >> Part1
> >> System Image Side:
> >> We  need to alter the "debootsrap" to "mock" and change debian
> specific
> >> configs to redhat.  Once functional - I need to create 3 versions of
> >> the template for VmWare, Xen and KVM. I have VmWare in house - no
> >> Xen/KVM yet - we can deal with this - once I get there.
> >>
> >> Part2
> >> Systemvm.iso will need to be updated and include rhel version of the
> >> patch scripts we run on power on.
> >>
> >>
> >> What is the reason for running 32bit OS vs 64? Are we open to
> changing
> >> that to 64bit - which would probably benefit very large
> implementations
> >> using basic zones. Or should we keep it 32 bit for consistency
> reason?
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 7:47 AM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
> >>
> >> WRT to CentOS.  Did you survey the changes required?
> >>
> >> Would be great to have these on a wiki page for future reference and
> >> history tracking.
> >>
> >>
> >> DL
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
> >> Sent: 12 December 2012 9:33 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
> >>
> >> Donal
> >>
> >> See response in line..
> >>
> >> >> 1.  Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy
> systemVM?
> >> I've only seen Squeeze.
> >>
> >> I confused the names - I think - its squeeze - wheezy is the latest
> >> offering with 3.x kernel. I guess by now you noticed I'm not debian
> >> user :)
> >>
> >> >> 2.  In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and
> only
> >> one CentOS VM in addition to Debian.  I get the impression that
> CentOS
> >> has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if
> >> I'm wrong.
> >>
> >> I'm under impression CentOS has very liberal licensing structure. I
> >> don't believe we should have an issue here - but I'm by no means a
> >> licensing expert.
> >>
> >> I think it's reasonable to have 1 other offering only..
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> ilya
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:34 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
> >>
> >> 1.  Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM?
> >> I've only seen Squeeze.
> >>
> >> 2.  In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only
> one
> >> CentOS VM in addition to Debian.  I get the impression that CentOS
> has
> >> a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if I'm
> >> wrong.
> >>
> >> DL
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
> >> Sent: 12 December 2012 8:06 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> Your point is clear and well taken. Nobody wants to be in business
> of
> >> maintaining myriad of distros out there for something that should
> not
> >> be changed anyway.
> >>
> >> I see two solutions then:
> >>
> >> 1) update the existing debian wheezy image to reflect latest fixes -
> >> which is probably something that should do anyway.
> >>
> >> 2) maybe have a section of  - "user submitted and unsupported"
> system
> >> offerings? We can clearly state - we support 1 type of offering and
> >> other offerings are optional and unsupported  - but your own
> >> responsibility and should be used by advanced users only.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> -ilya
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:jzb@zonker.net]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:02 AM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> >> > This is pretty important.  Anyone should be able to roll their own,
> >> > rather than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It
> >> > seems like it would be pretty simple and straightforward on the
> face
> >> > of it, however many of the scripts have been written specifically
> for
> >> > Debian. I'd honestly be ok with having to stick to a particular
> >> distro
> >> > if I at least had clear instructions on how to make my own, I
> >> > understand the need to program against a single defined userspace.
> >>
> >> I see a potential problem with this.
> >>
> >> Any scenario where users are customizing part of the stack means
> >> additional variables which means additional problems. If we target
> >> Debian, trying to create a system VM from CentOS/RHEL means
> different
> >> libraries, etc. - which means a number of potential problems
> cropping
> >> up where there were none before.
> >>
> >> I'm not saying users *shouldn't* be able to do this - just that I
> >> haven't noticed anyone raising the issue that we'll probably start
> >> seeing a fair number more bugs if replacing the system VM becomes a
> >> standard practice. There's a reason, for instance, that Linux
> vendors
> >> don't support custom kernels - and what's being proposed here is
> >> swapping out an entire OS.
> >>
> >> It's going to make things a bit more tricky when someone reports a
> bug
> >> and they're using a roll-your-own system VM and the people doing the
> >> testing are using a different one.
> >>
> >> Again - not saying we shouldn't do this, but I'd like to see that
> given
> >> a bit more consideration when we're discussing the issue.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> jzb
> >> --
> >> Joe Brockmeier
> >> jzb@zonker.net
> >> Twitter: @jzb
> >> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >


Mime
View raw message