Thanks for the feedback Sebastien, it's much appreciated. I'll investigate in more detail over the next few days...
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >> > -- Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn. http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
