Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Remove AWS api bridge
Ian, Since that code was developed outside of the project, would you and your compatriots be willing to donate it to the project officially? (Actually, same request for the GCE interface work) IMO, I'd love this for a couple of reasons: 1) it's newer code, and likely works better 2) we should consider AWS (or GCE) API support to be non-core to the project, but it's important to have that functionality available for those that want it 3) if it's in the project officially, we can try build a community around maintaining it beyond current maintainers 4) (and this is a general thought that I haven't fully formed) - we need to find ways to focus on solidifying the "core" of CloudStack so that it's rock solid and exceptionally fast to get started with (faster than we are today). Features that are outside of the core should be add-ons to the core (like AWS API support) My 2 cents.. On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Ian Duffy wrote: > +1 on ec2stack working well (bias view). > > I've used it via vagrant-aws, boto and eucalyptus eutester without issue. > > It could use some documentation on deployment for production purposes, the > embedded webserver it exposes is OK but I'd feel safer with it bring behind > nginx/Apache. > On 21 Nov 2014 14:31, "Hugo Trippaers" wrote: > >> Let’s start by getting this on a feature branch. >> >> I would like to make sure that everything works before we remove the code >> and that includes deb and rpm packaging. We also need to think about the >> upgrade path. If a user is currently using awsapi, he needs an upgrade path >> the start using the replacement. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Hugo >> >> > On 21 nov. 2014, at 14:39, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Nov 21, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Nux! wrote: >> > >> >> +1 what Daan said. >> >> >> >> Once ec2stack works well, then nuke awsapi. >> >> >> > >> > it works well. >> > >> > where can we see test about awsapi ? >> > >> >> my 2 pence >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! >> >> >> >> Nux! >> >> www.nux.ro >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> >>> From: "Daan Hoogland" >> >>> To: "dev" >> >>> Sent: Friday, 21 November, 2014 13:16:25 >> >>> Subject: Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Remove AWS api bridge >> >> >> >>> As Seb mentioned on list there is an alternative. I don't think we >> >>> should remove this before the factored out version is working as well >> >>> (or the alternative he mentions is at least as complete) The idea of >> >>> isolating this bit is appealing though. >> >>> >> >>> Daan >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Nux! wrote: >> Hello, >> >> EC2 compatibility is an essential feature for potential ACS adopters. >> What alternatives are there for the AWSAPI component? >> >> Lucian >> >> -- >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! >> >> Nux! >> www.nux.ro >> >> - Original Message - >> > From: "pyr" >> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> > Sent: Friday, 21 November, 2014 10:18:58 >> > Subject: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Remove AWS api bridge >> >> > GitHub user pyr opened a pull request: >> > >> > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/44 >> > >> > Remove AWS api bridge >> > >> > This has been a discussion point for a while. The (mostly generated) >> > code for the AWS api bridge is by far the largest source component >> in >> > Cloudstack, while seldomly used. >> > >> > Now that alternate options exist to provide EC2 compatibility, it >> > makes sense to remove it for the few users who cannot directly >> > talk to the cloudstack API. >> > >> > You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: >> > >> > $ git pull https://github.com/pyr/cloudstack feature/no-dead-code >> > >> > Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: >> > >> > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/44.patch >> > >> > To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch >> > with (at least) the following in the commit message: >> > >> > This closes #44 >> > >> > >> > commit 84042f2c3259203b1ea1956cd239b9122079bae9 >> > Author: Pierre-Yves Ritschard >> > Date: 2014-11-21T10:17:18Z >> > >> > Remove AWS api bridge >> > >> > This has been a discussion point for a while. The (mostly generated) >> > code for the AWS api bridge is by far the largest source component >> in >> > Cloudstack, while seldomly used. >> > >> > Now that alternate options exist to provide EC2 compatibility, it >> > makes sense to remove it for the few users who cannot directly >> > talk to the cloudstack API. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > --- >> > If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and >> have your >> >>>
Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Remove AWS api bridge
Additional point - IMO, if we do this we would manage both ec2bridge and the GCE code as separate repos (just like how docs and cloudmonkey are), so that they can be released independently. We'd also want to package them with DEB and RPM so that they can be easily installed alongside or on their own very easily. On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Chip Childers wrote: > Ian, > > Since that code was developed outside of the project, would you and > your compatriots be willing to donate it to the project officially? > > (Actually, same request for the GCE interface work) > > IMO, I'd love this for a couple of reasons: > > 1) it's newer code, and likely works better > 2) we should consider AWS (or GCE) API support to be non-core to the > project, but it's important to have that functionality available for > those that want it > 3) if it's in the project officially, we can try build a community > around maintaining it beyond current maintainers > 4) (and this is a general thought that I haven't fully formed) - we > need to find ways to focus on solidifying the "core" of CloudStack so > that it's rock solid and exceptionally fast to get started with > (faster than we are today). Features that are outside of the core > should be add-ons to the core (like AWS API support) > > My 2 cents.. > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Ian Duffy wrote: >> +1 on ec2stack working well (bias view). >> >> I've used it via vagrant-aws, boto and eucalyptus eutester without issue. >> >> It could use some documentation on deployment for production purposes, the >> embedded webserver it exposes is OK but I'd feel safer with it bring behind >> nginx/Apache. >> On 21 Nov 2014 14:31, "Hugo Trippaers" wrote: >> >>> Let’s start by getting this on a feature branch. >>> >>> I would like to make sure that everything works before we remove the code >>> and that includes deb and rpm packaging. We also need to think about the >>> upgrade path. If a user is currently using awsapi, he needs an upgrade path >>> the start using the replacement. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Hugo >>> >>> > On 21 nov. 2014, at 14:39, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Nov 21, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Nux! wrote: >>> > >>> >> +1 what Daan said. >>> >> >>> >> Once ec2stack works well, then nuke awsapi. >>> >> >>> > >>> > it works well. >>> > >>> > where can we see test about awsapi ? >>> > >>> >> my 2 pence >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! >>> >> >>> >> Nux! >>> >> www.nux.ro >>> >> >>> >> - Original Message - >>> >>> From: "Daan Hoogland" >>> >>> To: "dev" >>> >>> Sent: Friday, 21 November, 2014 13:16:25 >>> >>> Subject: Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Remove AWS api bridge >>> >> >>> >>> As Seb mentioned on list there is an alternative. I don't think we >>> >>> should remove this before the factored out version is working as well >>> >>> (or the alternative he mentions is at least as complete) The idea of >>> >>> isolating this bit is appealing though. >>> >>> >>> >>> Daan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Nux! wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> EC2 compatibility is an essential feature for potential ACS adopters. >>> What alternatives are there for the AWSAPI component? >>> >>> Lucian >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! >>> >>> Nux! >>> www.nux.ro >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> > From: "pyr" >>> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>> > Sent: Friday, 21 November, 2014 10:18:58 >>> > Subject: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Remove AWS api bridge >>> >>> > GitHub user pyr opened a pull request: >>> > >>> > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/44 >>> > >>> > Remove AWS api bridge >>> > >>> > This has been a discussion point for a while. The (mostly generated) >>> > code for the AWS api bridge is by far the largest source component >>> in >>> > Cloudstack, while seldomly used. >>> > >>> > Now that alternate options exist to provide EC2 compatibility, it >>> > makes sense to remove it for the few users who cannot directly >>> > talk to the cloudstack API. >>> > >>> > You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: >>> > >>> > $ git pull https://github.com/pyr/cloudstack feature/no-dead-code >>> > >>> > Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at: >>> > >>> > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/44.patch >>> > >>> > To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch >>> > with (at least) the following in the commit message: >>> > >>> > This closes #44 >>> > >>> > >>> > commit 84042f2c3259203b1ea1956cd239b9122079bae9 >>> > Author: Pierre-Yves Ritschard >>> > Date: 2014-11-21T10:17:18Z >>> > >>> > Remove AWS api bridge >>> > >>> > This has been
Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Remove AWS api bridge
Hi Chip, Bringing Darren and Sebastien into this since they wrote some of it to. I'm totally OK with it being donated. On 22 November 2014 at 10:59, Chip Childers wrote: > Ian, > > Since that code was developed outside of the project, would you and > your compatriots be willing to donate it to the project officially? > > (Actually, same request for the GCE interface work) > > IMO, I'd love this for a couple of reasons: > > 1) it's newer code, and likely works better > 2) we should consider AWS (or GCE) API support to be non-core to the > project, but it's important to have that functionality available for > those that want it > 3) if it's in the project officially, we can try build a community > around maintaining it beyond current maintainers > 4) (and this is a general thought that I haven't fully formed) - we > need to find ways to focus on solidifying the "core" of CloudStack so > that it's rock solid and exceptionally fast to get started with > (faster than we are today). Features that are outside of the core > should be add-ons to the core (like AWS API support) > > My 2 cents.. > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Ian Duffy wrote: > > +1 on ec2stack working well (bias view). > > > > I've used it via vagrant-aws, boto and eucalyptus eutester without issue. > > > > It could use some documentation on deployment for production purposes, > the > > embedded webserver it exposes is OK but I'd feel safer with it bring > behind > > nginx/Apache. > > On 21 Nov 2014 14:31, "Hugo Trippaers" wrote: > > > >> Let’s start by getting this on a feature branch. > >> > >> I would like to make sure that everything works before we remove the > code > >> and that includes deb and rpm packaging. We also need to think about the > >> upgrade path. If a user is currently using awsapi, he needs an upgrade > path > >> the start using the replacement. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Hugo > >> > >> > On 21 nov. 2014, at 14:39, Sebastien Goasguen > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Nov 21, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Nux! wrote: > >> > > >> >> +1 what Daan said. > >> >> > >> >> Once ec2stack works well, then nuke awsapi. > >> >> > >> > > >> > it works well. > >> > > >> > where can we see test about awsapi ? > >> > > >> >> my 2 pence > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > >> >> > >> >> Nux! > >> >> www.nux.ro > >> >> > >> >> - Original Message - > >> >>> From: "Daan Hoogland" > >> >>> To: "dev" > >> >>> Sent: Friday, 21 November, 2014 13:16:25 > >> >>> Subject: Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Remove AWS api bridge > >> >> > >> >>> As Seb mentioned on list there is an alternative. I don't think we > >> >>> should remove this before the factored out version is working as > well > >> >>> (or the alternative he mentions is at least as complete) The idea of > >> >>> isolating this bit is appealing though. > >> >>> > >> >>> Daan > >> >>> > >> >>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Nux! wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> EC2 compatibility is an essential feature for potential ACS > adopters. > >> What alternatives are there for the AWSAPI component? > >> > >> Lucian > >> > >> -- > >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > >> > >> Nux! > >> www.nux.ro > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> > From: "pyr" > >> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> > Sent: Friday, 21 November, 2014 10:18:58 > >> > Subject: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Remove AWS api bridge > >> > >> > GitHub user pyr opened a pull request: > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/44 > >> > > >> > Remove AWS api bridge > >> > > >> > This has been a discussion point for a while. The (mostly > generated) > >> > code for the AWS api bridge is by far the largest source > component > >> in > >> > Cloudstack, while seldomly used. > >> > > >> > Now that alternate options exist to provide EC2 compatibility, it > >> > makes sense to remove it for the few users who cannot directly > >> > talk to the cloudstack API. > >> > > >> > You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: > >> > > >> > $ git pull https://github.com/pyr/cloudstack > feature/no-dead-code > >> > > >> > Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch > at: > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/44.patch > >> > > >> > To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk > branch > >> > with (at least) the following in the commit message: > >> > > >> > This closes #44 > >> > > >> > > >> > commit 84042f2c3259203b1ea1956cd239b9122079bae9 > >> > Author: Pierre-Yves Ritschard > >> > Date: 2014-11-21T10:17:18Z > >> > > >> > Remove AWS api bridge > >> > > >> > This has been a discussion point for a while. The (mostly > generated) > >>
Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Remove AWS api bridge
Hi all, I was involved in the development of ec2stack and gstack. I'm completely fine with both projects being donated. Darren On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Ian Duffy wrote: > Hi Chip, > > Bringing Darren and Sebastien into this since they wrote some of it to. > > I'm totally OK with it being donated. > > On 22 November 2014 at 10:59, Chip Childers > wrote: > >> Ian, >> >> Since that code was developed outside of the project, would you and >> your compatriots be willing to donate it to the project officially? >> >> (Actually, same request for the GCE interface work) >> >> IMO, I'd love this for a couple of reasons: >> >> 1) it's newer code, and likely works better >> 2) we should consider AWS (or GCE) API support to be non-core to the >> project, but it's important to have that functionality available for >> those that want it >> 3) if it's in the project officially, we can try build a community >> around maintaining it beyond current maintainers >> 4) (and this is a general thought that I haven't fully formed) - we >> need to find ways to focus on solidifying the "core" of CloudStack so >> that it's rock solid and exceptionally fast to get started with >> (faster than we are today). Features that are outside of the core >> should be add-ons to the core (like AWS API support) >> >> My 2 cents.. >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Ian Duffy wrote: >> > +1 on ec2stack working well (bias view). >> > >> > I've used it via vagrant-aws, boto and eucalyptus eutester without >> issue. >> > >> > It could use some documentation on deployment for production purposes, >> the >> > embedded webserver it exposes is OK but I'd feel safer with it bring >> behind >> > nginx/Apache. >> > On 21 Nov 2014 14:31, "Hugo Trippaers" wrote: >> > >> >> Let’s start by getting this on a feature branch. >> >> >> >> I would like to make sure that everything works before we remove the >> code >> >> and that includes deb and rpm packaging. We also need to think about >> the >> >> upgrade path. If a user is currently using awsapi, he needs an upgrade >> path >> >> the start using the replacement. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Hugo >> >> >> >> > On 21 nov. 2014, at 14:39, Sebastien Goasguen >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Nov 21, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Nux! wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> +1 what Daan said. >> >> >> >> >> >> Once ec2stack works well, then nuke awsapi. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > it works well. >> >> > >> >> > where can we see test about awsapi ? >> >> > >> >> >> my 2 pence >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! >> >> >> >> >> >> Nux! >> >> >> www.nux.ro >> >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> >> >>> From: "Daan Hoogland" >> >> >>> To: "dev" >> >> >>> Sent: Friday, 21 November, 2014 13:16:25 >> >> >>> Subject: Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Remove AWS api >> bridge >> >> >> >> >> >>> As Seb mentioned on list there is an alternative. I don't think we >> >> >>> should remove this before the factored out version is working as >> well >> >> >>> (or the alternative he mentions is at least as complete) The idea >> of >> >> >>> isolating this bit is appealing though. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Daan >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Nux! wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> EC2 compatibility is an essential feature for potential ACS >> adopters. >> >> What alternatives are there for the AWSAPI component? >> >> >> >> Lucian >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! >> >> >> >> Nux! >> >> www.nux.ro >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> >> > From: "pyr" >> >> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> >> > Sent: Friday, 21 November, 2014 10:18:58 >> >> > Subject: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Remove AWS api bridge >> >> >> >> > GitHub user pyr opened a pull request: >> >> > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/44 >> >> > >> >> > Remove AWS api bridge >> >> > >> >> > This has been a discussion point for a while. The (mostly >> generated) >> >> > code for the AWS api bridge is by far the largest source >> component >> >> in >> >> > Cloudstack, while seldomly used. >> >> > >> >> > Now that alternate options exist to provide EC2 compatibility, >> it >> >> > makes sense to remove it for the few users who cannot directly >> >> > talk to the cloudstack API. >> >> > >> >> > You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: >> >> > >> >> > $ git pull https://github.com/pyr/cloudstack >> feature/no-dead-code >> >> > >> >> > Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the >> patch at: >> >> > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/44.patch >> >> > >> >> > To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk >> branch >> >> > with (at least) the following in the commit message: >
Re: Review Request 28279: CLOUDSTACK-7951: cloudstack-agent jsvc gets too large virtual memory space.
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28279/#review62727 --- -1 Sorry, we need to discuss what min/max values we should use? Min 1GB RAM is too much IMO say for people using KVM/DevCloud - Rohit Yadav On Nov. 20, 2014, 9:35 a.m., Keiichi Yusa wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/28279/ > --- > > (Updated Nov. 20, 2014, 9:35 a.m.) > > > Review request for cloudstack. > > > Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-7951 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-7951 > > > Repository: cloudstack-git > > > Description > --- > > cloudstack-agent jsvc gets too large virtual memory space on huge > memory equipped machine. > Due to this problem, qemu-kvm process often fails deploying a VM > that uses large RAM. > > This patch limits amount of memory used by cloudstack-agent jsvc. > As a result, qemu-kvm process does not fail deploying a VM that > uses large memory. > > > Diffs > - > > packaging/centos63/cloud-agent.rc ab49524 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28279/diff/ > > > Testing > --- > > We are using this patch in our CloudStack environment. > In fact, cloudstack-agent jsvc reduces virtual memory > from about 35GB to about 6GB. (Physical machine has 128GB RAM) > > > Thanks, > > Keiichi Yusa > >
[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Remove AWS api bridge
Github user resmo commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/44#issuecomment-64081042 :+1: --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
Moving ec2stack and gstack to the cloudstack repos.
Folks, Some of you may know of the existence of: https://github.com/BroganD1993/ec2stack https://github.com/NOPping/gstack These represent a EC2 and a GCE interface to cloudstack. Flask applications that map the requests to the cloudstack API. There was only 3 contributors, myself, Ian (PMC and committer on CS) and Darren Brogan. Darren worked on this during his GSoC 2014 summer project. Both projects are on Apache V2 license. The three of us (Ian, Darren and myself) agree that we would like to move them under the umbrella of cloudstack and manage separate releases like we do cloud monkey. Any objections ? -Sebastien
