incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edison Su <Edison...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2013 23:22:10 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: akarasulu@gmail.com [mailto:akarasulu@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Alex Karasulu
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 2:24 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack
> 
> Hi Chiradeep,
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <
> Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> > Any updates / help?
> >
> >
> Just as an update Phong has made some progress creating LXC based virtual
> machines via the libvirt interface. I myself have not caught up to him, just
> started stepping through code to see how it would work.
> 
> We have weekly meetings on Tuesdays just to see where we are. I'll see
> about getting a formal update to the list by then.

Could you add me into the meeting in the future? I am interested in this area, and let's see
what I can help on the storage side.

> 
> 
> > I'd like to point out that the secondary storage process
> > (NfsSecondaryStorageResource) can run outside a system vm as well
> > (bare metal).
> > It has a "inSystemVm" flag that turns on/off various things.
> >
> >
> This is good to know. I know Phong and I both had some questions about
> storage matters.
> 
> 
> > Alternatively you can run LocalSecondaryStorageResource instead --
> > this executes inside the management server and expects the NFS server
> > to be mounted on the management server.
> > But not all features are supported (esp. zone-to-zone copy).
> >
> > With the storage refactor, you may not even need either resource as
> > long as all you need is to copy images to primary storage from some
> > store (e.g., a web server).
> >
> >
> >
> Thanks for the heads up and offer to help. After meeting with Phong next
> week we'll report back to the list.
> 
> Regards,
> Alex
> 
> 
> > On 1/8/13 4:42 PM, "Alex Karasulu" <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Phong Nguyen <pnguyen@gilt.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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
> +
> > Clo
> > >>udstack
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Yes, I'll contact you offline for minor coordination details and
> > >every so often we can report back to the mailing list.
> > >
> > >
> > >> 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?
> > >>
> > >
> > >Yep but with git it makes little difference.
> > >
> > >
> > >> 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=280308
> > >> > >>>> 21
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> 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.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >Best Regards,
> > >-- Alex
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Best Regards,
> -- Alex

Mime
View raw message