On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:25 PM, chris snow <chsnow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I finally got the packer built devcloud box to boot with vagrant, but >> running 'xe vm-list' in it results in: >> >> Error: Connection refused (calling connect ) >> >> I'm going to do some more investigation, but could take a while as I >> get to learn xen. >> >> To make things easy while working on this I've created a github project here >> [2] >> > > I cloned it, the packer builds works and the vagrant export as well. > I was able to vagrant up/ssh. > > I noticed couple things. > > 1-the Xen setup. Check Rohit's blog http://bhaisaab.org he has a section on > DIY Devcloud, where he shows how to setup Xen, namely xapi toolstack and > creating a echo plugin.I think that's what you are missing, you can probably > add this to your posinstall script > > 2-We switched master to java 7, so you should switch to openjdk-7 > > 3- you might be missing a mysql-python-connector package and you should setup > the mysql password as null (for dev). > One more. It looks like there is only one interface (NAT), probably need to play with the pressed.cfg to add a host only interface: https://github.com/snowch/devcloud/blob/master/http/preseed.cfg > This is looking quite nice :) > >> I've added the problem above as an issue on github. >> >> --- >> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/XenServer/VirtualBox#Installing_XCP >> [2] https://github.com/snowch/devcloud >> >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> 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 >>>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn. >> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69 >
