On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:57 PM, chris snow <chsnow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have started thinking about some options: >> >> 1) use packer to convert the devcloud2 veewee definition as a starting point >> 2) create devcloud3 from scratch >> 3) start with an existing packer definition (e.g. [1]) >> >> Do you have a view on which option may be most suitable? >> > > My view would be to start from scratch but of course looking at what has been > done. > > In an ideal world, I would love to see a packer/vagrant file that would do: > > -Ubuntu and CentOS > -Xen and KVM > > That way we can decide on what to build. Of course there might be issues due > to the PV/HVM support in vbox and the OS chosen. > I don't recall what the issue was that made Rohit use Debian (but see > http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/), but ideally it would be good to use > stock ubuntu 12.04 or 13.04
DevCloud is just an appliance that facilitates a virtual host (hypervisor) for development with CloudStack. So, I chose Debian because well it's the best in terms of packages, stability, security and is usually rock solid. Ubuntu at the time had a networking issue that did not let me use xenbr0 for use over host-only network, I did not invest much time on it but rather switched to Debian. I suggest we stick to Debian as it would be least painful for anyone IMO and the problem we're trying to solve is to enable developers have a robust (possibly multi-vm) hypervisor host in box (vm) over a desktop virtualization platform (virtualbox, kvm etc.) (IMHO -- I wonder if you've tried latest rock-solid Fedora 20, Ubuntu should have been least recommended distro by now don't use it please). > I list 13.04 because there seems to be an issue with libvirt in 12.04 in the > case that you want ceph (http://ceph.com/docs/master/rbd/rbd-cloudstack/). Of > course ceph on a single node does not make sense, but for a devcloud3 setup > we could imagine setting up ceph in it and use it as primary storage. Why not build libvirt version we want? In case we want to stay updated I can help you with Fedora 20 based base or Arch based base for devcloud. I've been using Fedora for some months now and I guess if someone want latest and greatest but want to avoid a lot of sysadmin work as with Arch Linux just go with Fedora. Linux users (new and old) have more or less been inclined to Debian because yum-based distros were in really bad shape few years ago and that's when like others I shifted to using Ubuntu. But it's not the case anymore and Ubuntu has tons of problems now and rpm-based distros deserver one shot. > > I mention KVM because if one uses VMware workstation than KVM would be an > option. > > What I am doing these days is taking a veewee bare definition and using > veewee-to-packer to get started with packer. I install chef/salt/puppet > agents in the image so that I can use the 3 of them if I want to. > >> If we go with option 2 or 3, do you think debian 7.0 should be used as >> a starting point, or another version such as 7.2 or 7.3? Or even >> another distro? Feel free to choose whatever distro gives us all the tools and whatnot to solve our problem. Distros and tools are not the problem having a host in a box for CloudStack development is the problem. >> >> Are these goals still valid for devcloud3? >> >> - Two network interfaces, host-only adapter so that the VM is >> reachable from host os and a NAT so VMs can access Internet. This I guess will be most appreciated and useful for developers, probably first time users and for demo. Last time for some reason, I was unable to have Internet reach VMs inside DevCloud. > > Yes > >> - Can be used both as an all in one box solution like the original >> DevCloud but the mgmt server and other services can run elsewhere (on >> host os). This already works with last DevCloud. > > Yes > >> - Reduce resource requirements, so one could run it in 1G limit. +1 though I think size is not a major issue and reduce image size is a good to have thing. > > Would be great, but remember that systemvm and ttylinux will run within it, > so those 4 alone may use 1G > >> - Allow multiple DevCloud VMs hosts. +1 > > That would be great. Having some skeleton for multiple devcloud hosts in a > vagrant file so we can deploy "full" clouds. > >> - x86 dom0 and xen-i386 so it runs on all host os. >> - Reduce exported appliance (ova) file size. >> - It should be seamless, it should work out of the box. +1 Chris, appreciate you taking time working on this. Regards. > > yes > >> >> Are there any new requirements in addition to the ones discussed in >> this email chain, e.g. >> >> - vagrant support (in addition to the ova/ovf image) >> - packer and vagrant build environment >> > > In simstack https://github.com/runseb/simstack I am trying to provide > chef/salt/puppet recipes for the install. So in devcloud3, I would lay things > out so that we can also do those 3 cfg mgt system in the future. Note that > simstack is not devcloud as I am trying to run the simulator and have to > compile from source because there is no simulator package. > >> >> Many thanks, >> >> Chris >> >> >> [1] https://github.com/opscode/bento/tree/master/packer >> >> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Rohit Yadav <bhais...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for stepping in. That is much needed, in fact I think we should >>>> use something like packer alongwith vagrant/veewee for both devcloud >>>> and systemvmtemplate. Veewee can build vms, packer can export them to >>>> various platforms/formats and a developer could use vagrant for local >>>> devcloud/host automation. >>>> >>> >>> I looked into it the other day and I agree we need to revamp this. >>> >>> veewee development and maintenance is going to stop. So we need to prep a >>> packer version >>> >>> So yes we should create a packer definition for devcloud3 :) and be able to >>> post-process it to vagrant. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Regards. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:30 AM, chris snow <chsnow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> I would like to build the devcloud2 image [1] from scratch using >>>>> veewee (or packer) and turn it into a vagrant box. >>>>> >>>>> There seems to be several versions of Vagrant files and veewee >>>>> definitions in the code base, making it difficult to know which one to >>>>> start from, or whether they are still valid. >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Chris >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/ >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn. >> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69 >
