On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Bryan Whitehead <dri...@megahappy.net> wrote: > having custom systemvm's seems ideal. A network offering can be paired with > a systemVM (or something along those lines). > > Giving the community the ability to create their own Vyatta-like offerings > is what will drive innovation. Would be fantastic to have a number of > VPN/LB/IDS/etc offerings in the marketplace to choose from that just work > seamlessly inside cloudstack.
Huge +1 to this. IMO, I prefer virtual appliances to physical for network services... and being able to delegate instantiation and lifecycle to the same logic that manages system VMs would be a very valuable option. > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Kelceydamage@bbits <kel...@bbits.ca> wrote: > >> Great to hear. Let me know the name of the developer, and I'll talk to the >> west coast arm if Vyatta and get them to match the contribution. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Dec 6, 2012, at 9:12 PM, "Musayev, Ilya" <imusa...@webmd.net> wrote: >> >> > Kelcey >> > >> > Made some headway already. >> > >> > Got a response from one Viyatta developer who was referred to us from >> CEO as per my previous LinkedIn message. >> > >> > I will introduce him/her to CS but I will need CS dev team to help out >> with knowledge gap and transfer. As well as people like you and I for >> testing and whatever else we can do to help move this along. >> > >> > -ilya >> > >> > "Kelcey Damage (BBITS)" <kel...@bbits.ca> wrote: >> > That’s why I did some in person work. I am going to really try and >> massage >> > my relationship with Brocade and get access to the Vyatta engineers. >> > >> > Hopefully between us we can get in touch with at least one influencer at >> > Brocade/Vyatta. >> > >> > -kd >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net] >> > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:19 AM >> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> > Subject: RE: CentOS System VM? >> > >> > I started contacting few people, I contacted CEO of Vyatta and another >> > person who now works for Citrix but was VP of Marketing for Vyatta. I did >> > both contacts via LinkedIn. >> > I do think LinkedIn will probably be ignored because it's a great >> marketing >> > spam tool. >> > >> > We should try direct email. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Kelceydamage@bbits [mailto:kel...@bbits.ca] >> > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 12:42 PM >> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> > Subject: Re: CentOS System VM? >> > >> > Interesting, I spoke with Brocade yesterday and the also feel their >> Vyatta >> > acquisition is a good gap offering for cloud services. >> > >> > Maybe we should see if their willing to produce the code? >> > >> > Sent from my iPhone >> > >> > On Dec 6, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Clayton Weise <cwe...@iswest.net> wrote: >> > >> >> I would love to see a Vyatta based router as well, and they have a >> RESTful >> > API (which is both good and bad given the mixture of tools. But making >> use >> > of a REST interface on a virtual router opens up the ability to integrate >> > with other vendors who have virtual router/firewall appliances. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net] >> >> Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 8:43 AM >> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >> Subject: RE: CentOS System VM? >> >> >> >> Vyatta provides great L3-L4 support with good number of features and >> > interface. >> >> >> >> If there is a doc on how to create and integrate your system offering - >> > that would be great. Unfortunately vyatta is also debian based.. but >> that's >> > not exactly a hard negative. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net] >> >> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:25 AM >> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >> Subject: RE: CentOS System VM? >> >> >> >> I guess we can try creating alternative system offering :) >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Kelceydamage@bbits [mailto:kel...@bbits.ca] >> >> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 3:17 AM >> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >> Subject: Re: CentOS System VM? >> >> >> >> I'm also interested in swapping out ha_proxy for nginx so the lb feature >> > can support SSL termination. Currently building my own VRs as guest VMs >> on >> > shared networks for that feature. >> >> >> >> Is the community thinking about proper ssl endpoints and offloading? >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> On Dec 5, 2012, at 11:30 PM, "Musayev, Ilya" <imusa...@webmd.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Granted both debian wheezy and centos/rhel 6, run the same major kernel >> > version 2.6.32 i386 and hopefully same glibc library (need to confirm) - >> it >> > should be really easy to port the code over without needing to recompile >> > anything. I don't believe we do anything overly complex - within >> application >> > code - that would glue components to specific OS. Applications like >> apache, >> > dns masq, haproxy, sshd and dhcp can be stock versions of what OS vendor >> > released. >> >>> >> >>> This is my observations so far and I will give it a shot when time >> allows >> > to confirm. >> >>> >> >>> If someone knows of reason why this would fail, please let me know so I >> > don't waste my time:) but I am fairly optimistic. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks >> >>> Ilya >> >>> >> >>> "Kelceydamage@bbits" <kel...@bbits.ca> wrote: >> >>> This sounds great, however I am hoping for updated wiki on how to >> create >> > your own system vm(distro). >> >>> >> >>> Maybe one day.... >> >>> >> >>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> >> >>> On Dec 5, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Chiradeep Vittal >> > <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> The current system vm is getting long in the tooth. I (or Rohit >> >>>> Yadav) will looking into building a wheezy-based systemvm that >> >>>> includes hyper-v drivers. >> >>>> Hopefully network throughput should be better as well when used with >> >>>> multiple cores. >> >>>> >> >>>> On 12/5/12 10:38 AM, "Jason Davis" <scr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> TBH Hyper-V synthetic drivers(modules) is supported in the mainline >> >>>>> kernel. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> So the argument that CentOS 6.x has better support is moot. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> This assumes that the kernel version on the SSVM is at least 2.6.32. >> >>>>> I ran Ubuntu Server 11.x and Centos 6.x on Hyper-V natively and >> >>>>> just needed to load the kernel modules for the synthetic stuffs to >> > work. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Ancient example of getting the Hyper-V modules built/working on >> >>>>> Debian 6.0 >> >>>>> http://virtualisationandmanagement.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/debian- >> >>>>> o n-hype r-v-with-4-vcpu-support-and-syntetic-network/ >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Kelceydamage@bbits >> >>>>> <kel...@bbits.ca> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> I'm very interested in this. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Dec 5, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Donal Lafferty >> >>>>>> <donal.laffe...@citrix.com> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Has anyone looked into building a system VM that runs on a CentOS >> >>>>>> distro? >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >>
