On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 08:30 -0800, Li, David wrote: > Mike, > > Two quick questions before I kick off a build: > > 1. Git errors. Do they matter? > > > [lid@FC16-1 node-archipel-2.2.2]$ git clone > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/p/ovirt-node.git refs/changes/38/1738/1&&git checkout > FETCH_HEAD > Cloning into refs/changes/38/1738/1... > remote: Counting objects: 14791, done > remote: Finding sources: 100% (14791/14791) > remote: Total 14791 (delta 10855), reused 14778 (delta 10855) > Receiving objects: 100% (14791/14791), 16.92 MiB | 154 KiB/s, done. > Resolving deltas: 100% (10855/10855), done. > fatal: Not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git
try this instead: git clone http://gerrit.ovirt.org/p/ovirt-node.git cd ovirt-node git fetch http://gerrit.ovirt.org/p/ovirt-node refs/changes/38/1738/1 && git cherry-pick FETCH_HEAD > > > 2. Build machine. > > I am using a x86_64 FC16 VM as the build machine. My target is x86_64 Intel > board. Is this ok? Should be fine. Mike > > > > - David > ________________________________________ > From: Mike Burns [mbu...@redhat.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:16 AM > To: Li, David > Cc: Perry Myers; users@ovirt.org > Subject: RE: [Users] Pxeboot > > On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 08:10 -0800, Li, David wrote: > > Not sure where the boot log is since I can't login. > > > > I got the source from https://github.com/primalmotion/archipel-node and > > followed the build instructions in > > http://ovirt.org/wiki/Node_Building > > > > maybe I should rebuild the iso from the ovirt node source tree as you have > > pulled in archipel changes yesterday. How do I do that? > > git fetch http://gerrit.ovirt.org/p/ovirt-node refs/changes/38/1738/1 && > git checkout FETCH_HEAD > > That command will checkout the current version of the archipel-node > changes. Then you can just follow the Node_Building process. Note that > the changes aren't merged into master yet. I'm still in the process of > reviewing them. > > Mike > > > > - David > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Mike Burns [mailto:mbu...@redhat.com] > > >Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 7:22 AM > > >To: Li, David > > >Cc: Perry Myers; users@ovirt.org > > >Subject: Re: [Users] Pxeboot > > > > > >On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 07:06 -0800, Li, David wrote: > > >> Mike, > > >> > > >> I added adminpw as a kernel option. After boot, I tried "admin/abc123" > > >> and "root/abc123" but not able to login. > > >> Any idea? > > >> > > > > > >Are there any errors in your build or boot logs? > > > > > >Mike > > > > > >> David > > >> > > >> > > >> >-----Original Message----- > > >> >From: Mike Burns [mailto:mbu...@redhat.com] > > >> >Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:53 PM > > >> >To: Li, David > > >> >Cc: Perry Myers; users@ovirt.org > > >> >Subject: Re: [Users] Pxeboot > > >> > > > >> >On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 17:11 -0800, Li, David wrote: > > >> >> Ok, I built an iso out of archipel and pxebooted it with stateless > > >> >> option. Now > > >> >I got a "localhost" login prompt. Any idea what should I put in as > > >> >user/pwd? > > >> >> David > > >> > > > >> >You will need to pass a password in on the command line as well > > >> > > > >> >adminpw=<hashed_password> > > >> > > > >> >You can generate the hashed password using: > > >> > > > >> >$ openssl passwd > > >> > > > >> >Assuming the password was abc123 > > >> > > > >> >$ openssl passwd abc123 > > >> >tKrQfufCbosr6 > > >> > > > >> >adminpw=tKrQfufCbosr6 > > >> > > > >> >Mike > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> >-----Original Message----- > > >> >> >From: Mike Burns [mailto:mbu...@redhat.com] > > >> >> >Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 4:31 PM > > >> >> >To: Li, David > > >> >> >Cc: Perry Myers; users@ovirt.org > > >> >> >Subject: RE: [Users] Pxeboot > > >> >> > > > >> >> >On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 15:43 -0800, Li, David wrote: > > >> >> >> Ok, I think we are on the same page now regarding stateless node. > > >> >> >> It looks like the achipel diff you just pulled in might be able > > >> >> >> to do this. But I can't quite make it out what the kernel option > > >> >> >> should > > >be. > > >> >> >> Is it "stateless=1"? > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> >stateless=1 or just stateless, both will work. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> David > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- > > >> >> >> >From: Mike Burns [mailto:mbu...@redhat.com] > > >> >> >> >Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:27 PM > > >> >> >> >To: Li, David > > >> >> >> >Cc: Perry Myers; users@ovirt.org > > >> >> >> >Subject: Re: [Users] Pxeboot > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 15:19 -0800, Li, David wrote: > > >> >> >> >> Perry, > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> I am glad you brought this up. > > >> >> >> >> I 'd be perfectly happy to run the root fs entirely in RAM. > > >> >> >> >> In fact that would > > >> >> >> >be ideal for me. It's just I am not quite sure how to use > > >> >> >> >pxeboot to achieve this. > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> I am doing a test now using the tftpboot files created from the > > >> >> >> >> iso. > > >> >> >> >> As far as I see, the kernel boot options (pxelinux.cfg/default) > > >> >> >> >> has: > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> root=live:/ovirt-node-image-2.2.2-1.1.fc16.iso > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> With this I can only pxeboot to the intall screen. What > > >> >> >> >> should I use to let the > > >> >> >> >kernel mount the root fs in memory? Something like > > >root=/dev/ram0? > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> David > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >It's not currently possible with ovirt-node. That's the whole > > >> >> >> >stateless feature that we outlined. Once we actually have it > > >> >> >> >implemented, it will be something along the lines of adding > > >> >> >> >"stateless" to > > >> >> >the kernel commandline. > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >Mike > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- > > >> >> >> >> >From: Perry Myers [mailto:pmy...@redhat.com] > > >> >> >> >> >Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 2:54 PM > > >> >> >> >> >To: Mike Burns > > >> >> >> >> >Cc: Li, David; users@ovirt.org > > >> >> >> >> >Subject: Re: [Users] Pxeboot > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >On 02/08/2012 05:03 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 13:46 -0800, Li, David wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >>> Mike, > > >> >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >> >>> If I understand this correctly, today I should be able to > > >> >> >> >> >>> pxeboot and nfs mount the root fs from a remote server. > > >> >> >> >> >>> Apart from setting up the pxe stuff, I 'd have to > > >> >> >> >> >>> populate the ovirt node root fs on the server > > >> >> >> >> >>> - perhaps steal it from a disk install. In other words I > > >> >> >> >> >>> am concerned about the point from which the kernel starts > > >> >> >> >> >>> to execute /init script (in the initramfs) to the point > > >> >> >> >> >>> /init is able to mount the final root fs from a remote > > >> >> >> >> >>> server. > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> No, there is no way to set this up currently in ovirt-node. > > >> >> >> >> >> You could install using a remote iscsi lun if you have a > > >> >> >> >> >> hardware iscsi HBA, but there isn't a way to mount a > > >> >> >> >> >> remote nfs share as the > > >> >> >root fs. > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> Supporting a remote NFS share as the root fs isn't even > > >> >> >> >> >> something that requested as an RFE at this point or on the > > >> >> >> >> >> roadmap as far as I'm aware. > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> It sounds like what you're really looking for is a shared > > >> >> >> >> >> root fs that multiple hosts could use. This is something > > >> >> >> >> >> that we will probably look into eventually, but it's not > > >> >> >> >> >> on the immediate > > >> >> >roadmap. > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >Given that the rootfs of oVirt Node is fairly small and in a > > >> >> >> >> >truly stateless environment would just run out of system > > >> >> >> >> >RAM, there's no real reason to try to do a shared NFS based > > >rootfs. > > >> >> >> >> >It's an unnecessary complication I think, if the end goal is > > >> >> >> >> >to move to truly > > >> >> >> >stateless. > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >For larger systems where the rootfs is on the order of GB's, > > >> >> >> >> >shared root may make more sense. > > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > > >> >> >> >> Users mailing list > > >> >> >> >> Users@ovirt.org > > >> >> >> >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> _______________________________________________ > > >> >> Users mailing list > > >> >> Users@ovirt.org > > >> >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > >> > > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Users mailing list > > >> Users@ovirt.org > > >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users