incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Huang <Alex.Hu...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack
Date Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:31:08 GMT
Phong,

Please also add a bug to CloudStack Jira and reference this email thread.

Github is the best place to start development.

--Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phong Nguyen [mailto:pnguyen@gilt.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 3:25 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack
> 
> Thank you all for your responses.
> 
> Chip: I have started a design document and will keep it updated with our
> discussions.
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LXC+Support+in
> +Cloudstack
> 
> Chiradeep: I think option #2 as you have suggested is a good idea. I'll be
> looking at this part soon in my dev setup, thanks for the advice.
> 
> Alex: Would be great to work with you if you are interested.
> 
> In terms of collaborating, since I'm a non-committer, would the best option
> be to develop on github? I'm assuming branch commit privileges is only for
> committers?
> 
> Thanks,
> -Phong
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Chiradeep Vittal <
> Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On 1/7/13 1:17 PM, "Alex Karasulu" <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Alex Karasulu
> > >><akarasulu@apache.org>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Phong,
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Phong Nguyen <pnguyen@gilt.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We are interested in adding LXC support to Cloudstack.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I've also been interested in Cloudstack support for LXC. I checked
a
> > >>>few
> > >>> days ago for it and was disappointed when I could not find it but found
> > >>> support for it in OpenStack instead :P. I wanted to inquire about
> > >>>adding
> > >>> LXC support thinking this might be a good starting point for my getting
> > >>> involved in the code. At this point, I have nothing further to
> > >>>contribute
> > >>> besides the link you already found, but I thought if others saw more
> > >>>people
> > >>> interested then LXC support might be considered.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Here's a bit more chatter on this topic but as we see it's not been
> > >> implemented. Rip for the picking ...
> > >>
> > >> http://goo.gl/x60At
> > >>
> > >>
> > >s/Rip/Ripe/ damn autocorrect on pad.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>  I've searched around
> > >>>> for container support for Cloudstack and was able to find one posting
> > >>>> related to OpenVZ (over a year ago):
> > >>>>
> > >>>> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28030821
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> BTW OpenVZ is great stuff but I've found the fact that you need a
> > >>>custom
> > >>> Kernel a bit of a problem. LXC is much better in this sense since it's
> > >>> already present in every kernel past 2.6.26 (or 2.6.29?) but that's
> > >>>besides
> > >>> the point of this thread. Sorry for digressing.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is there any current, on-going, or future work planned in this area?
> > >>>Are
> > >>>> there any architectural changes since then that would affect the
> > >>>> suggestions in this posting? Any other suggestions greatly
> > >>>>appreciated.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> I too am interested in these details.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Alex
> > >>>
> >
> >
> > I like the concept of more hypervisors being supported!
> > Having said that, the most perplexing thing that stumps people on such a
> > quest
> > is the need to have a system vm image for the new hypervisor
> >
> > There's a couple of approaches for this
> > 1. Assume a multi-hypervisor zone with enough XS/KVM/VMWare
> hypervisors to
> > run
> > the standard system vm image
> > 2. Make the system vm optional. This requires some code changes (not
> major)
> >   - make the console proxy optional
> >   - run the secondary storage daemon on baremetal (next to the
> management
> > server)
> > Option #2 will suffice for running vms without complex network services.
> >
> >

Mime
View raw message