You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net> on 2012/12/12 05:14:49 UTC
CentOS System Offering Thread
I'd like to resurrect this thread - as the other thread got carried away into Vyatta conversation.
My reasoning behind this move - is due to e1000 bug that affects Debian Wheezy, vSphere 5.0 (and possibly newer 5.1) and the router VM in Advanced Network Zone. While I could spent lots of time troubleshooting this issue - my environment is mostly RHEL/CentOS based and therefore - it would not hurt to have multiple flavors.
I'm also a lot more comfortable with RHEL based distros - but that just my preference.
In addition, this would be a good learning experience and I plan to document on how to create your custom system offerings. I also plan to add on more features than whats currently available - one of them being nginx - and more to come as need arises. The end goal is to have an automated solution using kickstart scripts that will be easy to upgrade and built on any platform.
I could probably reverse engineer the existing System Offerings - but anything that could save my time in this effort - would be truly appreciated.
With this in mind - I'm looking for any existing documentation that would describe the steps in achieving this goal.
If you would like to join me in this effort - please let me know.
Thanks
ilya
Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by "Kelceydamage@bbits" <ke...@bbits.ca>.
After the arp issues I had with the current system vm(VR) when behind an RHEL FW using arp for IP clustering, having the option of a centos VR would be great.
Mixed Linux distro environments can sometimes have unforeseen consequences. And if a shop is totally RHEL, then forcing them to use non RHEL distros for infra components makes little sense.
If we can get these alternate system VMs working, then I think it's a good move.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 12, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
>> This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own,
>> rather
>> than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It seems like it
>> would be pretty simple and straightforward on the face of it, however
>> many
>> of the scripts have been written specifically for Debian. I'd honestly be
>> ok with having to stick to a particular distro if I at least had clear
>> instructions on how to make my own, I understand the need to program
>> against a single defined userspace.
>
> I see a potential problem with this.
>
> Any scenario where users are customizing part of the stack means
> additional variables which means additional problems. If we target
> Debian, trying to create a system VM from CentOS/RHEL means different
> libraries, etc. - which means a number of potential problems cropping up
> where there were none before.
>
> I'm not saying users *shouldn't* be able to do this - just that I
> haven't noticed anyone raising the issue that we'll probably start
> seeing a fair number more bugs if replacing the system VM becomes a
> standard practice. There's a reason, for instance, that Linux vendors
> don't support custom kernels - and what's being proposed here is
> swapping out an entire OS.
>
> It's going to make things a bit more tricky when someone reports a bug
> and they're using a roll-your-own system VM and the people doing the
> testing are using a different one.
>
> Again - not saying we shouldn't do this, but I'd like to see that given
> a bit more consideration when we're discussing the issue.
>
> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by James Martin <jm...@basho.com>.
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>snip
> Personally I'm more worried about the userspace/file structure differences
> than library or kernel versions when it comes to making an OS work as a
> system vm. Shell scripts that run iptables, wget, tar and ifconfig commands
> tend to be very portable and distro agnostic, but differences in upstart,
> systemd, sysvinit, chkconfig and analogs, config file locations are all a
> pain for our system shell scripts.
>snip
You've got some good points here, but I think a lot of that can be
solved with a properly architected puppet module (or choose which CMS
you like). Let it handle the idiosyncrasies of the platform, with
maybe a few case statements base on os which dictate differences in
package names or file paths between distributions. It's ultimately
going to be much cleaner and more modular than a shell script (and
thus easier to maintain).
- James
Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>.
I agree, I'm definitely not on the side of supporting CentOS, Arch, or
whatever version of system VM an admin wants, it would be a nightmare for
the people who maintain the systemvm scripts. That's what I was attempting
to say. But I do think that it should be documented well enough that people
who want to roll their own Debian system, (because ours is out of date, or
has a slow driver, or whatever) can just install the scripts and run with
it.
Personally I'm more worried about the userspace/file structure differences
than library or kernel versions when it comes to making an OS work as a
system vm. Shell scripts that run iptables, wget, tar and ifconfig commands
tend to be very portable and distro agnostic, but differences in upstart,
systemd, sysvinit, chkconfig and analogs, config file locations are all a
pain for our system shell scripts. So it seems reasonable to have good
instructions on how the system vm is put together on Debian, and if someone
wants to drop in their own kernel, update the OS, or perhaps use Ubuntu
they can do that fairly painlessly. It will also facilitate someone
submitting a better system VM for consideration as the main one, or at
least help broaden the base of developers maintaining the default system
vm. Perhaps the existing documentation is sufficient for this, but I've
seen several questions about it.
In any case, it should be clear that people are on their own if they don't
use the provided image, or at the mercy of whatever third party is offering
system vms they choose to use. Perhaps that should be a part of the bug
form. I just don't want people to feel like they're being held hostage to
the one CloudStack offers because they can't find sufficient information.
After all, the one currently offered is almost a year old now, with no
updates, security or otherwise (maybe I'm wrong on this; it seems the
systemvm is the acton one from last Feb).
RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by "Kelcey Damage (BT)" <ke...@backbonetechnology.com>.
Centos also has a desirable file structure for many as well :)
-----Original Message-----
From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:34 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM? I've
only seen Squeeze.
2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only one
CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that CentOS has a
different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if I'm wrong.
DL
-----Original Message-----
From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
Sent: 12 December 2012 8:06 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Joe
Your point is clear and well taken. Nobody wants to be in business of
maintaining myriad of distros out there for something that should not be
changed anyway.
I see two solutions then:
1) update the existing debian wheezy image to reflect latest fixes - which
is probably something that should do anyway.
2) maybe have a section of - "user submitted and unsupported" system
offerings? We can clearly state - we support 1 type of offering and other
offerings are optional and unsupported - but your own responsibility and
should be used by advanced users only.
Thoughts?
Regards
-ilya
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:jzb@zonker.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:02 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own,
> rather than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It
> seems like it would be pretty simple and straightforward on the face
> of it, however many of the scripts have been written specifically for
> Debian. I'd honestly be ok with having to stick to a particular distro
> if I at least had clear instructions on how to make my own, I
> understand the need to program against a single defined userspace.
I see a potential problem with this.
Any scenario where users are customizing part of the stack means additional
variables which means additional problems. If we target Debian, trying to
create a system VM from CentOS/RHEL means different libraries, etc. - which
means a number of potential problems cropping up where there were none
before.
I'm not saying users *shouldn't* be able to do this - just that I haven't
noticed anyone raising the issue that we'll probably start seeing a fair
number more bugs if replacing the system VM becomes a standard practice.
There's a reason, for instance, that Linux vendors don't support custom
kernels - and what's being proposed here is swapping out an entire OS.
It's going to make things a bit more tricky when someone reports a bug and
they're using a roll-your-own system VM and the people doing the testing are
using a different one.
Again - not saying we shouldn't do this, but I'd like to see that given a
bit more consideration when we're discussing the issue.
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by Anthony Xu <Xu...@citrix.com>.
XenServer supports grub2 since 5.6 fp1 version.
Anthony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 3:00 PM
> To: CloudStack DeveloperList
> Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
>
> Yes, it is for performance reasons.
> CentOS
> -has a different place for network init scripts
> -has a different initialization scheme (chkconfig vs LSB init)
> -has a different place to initialize iptables
>
> Centos also may use GRUB-legacy vs GRUB2 for booting.
> The current systemvm uses GRUB-legacy since XS 5.6 only supported
> GRUB-legacy, but it might be time to move on.
>
> A more suitable systemvm build script might be based on veewee/vagrant,
> along with qemu-img to do the final conversion to vhd/qcow2
>
> --
> Chiradeep
>
> On 12/13/12 10:29 AM, "Anthony Xu" <Xu...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> >32-bit PV might have better performance than 64-bit PV on XEN,
> >In 64 bit mode, there are only ring 0 and ring 3, both Guest OS and
> guest
> >application are running on ring3 , application system call needs to be
> >trapped into hypervisor and then be injected into guest OS.
> >In 32 bit mode, there are ring 0, 1, 2, 3. Guest OS is running on
> ring
> >1, application is running on ring 3, hypervisor doesn't need to trap
> >system call.
> >
> >That might be one of reasons dom0 is 32 bit in XenServer/XCP.
> >
> >Anthony
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:20 AM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
> >>
> >> The choice of 32-bit OS may be to support legacy servers, but I
> really
> >> don't know.
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
> >> Sent: 13 December 2012 4:50 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
> >>
> >> I did.. reviewed buildsystemvm.sh script - seems self-explanatory.
> >>
> >> There are 2 major parts to this task as I see it.
> >>
> >> Part1
> >> System Image Side:
> >> We need to alter the "debootsrap" to "mock" and change debian
> specific
> >> configs to redhat. Once functional - I need to create 3 versions of
> >> the template for VmWare, Xen and KVM. I have VmWare in house - no
> >> Xen/KVM yet - we can deal with this - once I get there.
> >>
> >> Part2
> >> Systemvm.iso will need to be updated and include rhel version of the
> >> patch scripts we run on power on.
> >>
> >>
> >> What is the reason for running 32bit OS vs 64? Are we open to
> changing
> >> that to 64bit - which would probably benefit very large
> implementations
> >> using basic zones. Or should we keep it 32 bit for consistency
> reason?
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 7:47 AM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
> >>
> >> WRT to CentOS. Did you survey the changes required?
> >>
> >> Would be great to have these on a wiki page for future reference and
> >> history tracking.
> >>
> >>
> >> DL
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
> >> Sent: 12 December 2012 9:33 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
> >>
> >> Donal
> >>
> >> See response in line..
> >>
> >> >> 1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy
> systemVM?
> >> I've only seen Squeeze.
> >>
> >> I confused the names - I think - its squeeze - wheezy is the latest
> >> offering with 3.x kernel. I guess by now you noticed I'm not debian
> >> user :)
> >>
> >> >> 2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and
> only
> >> one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that
> CentOS
> >> has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if
> >> I'm wrong.
> >>
> >> I'm under impression CentOS has very liberal licensing structure. I
> >> don't believe we should have an issue here - but I'm by no means a
> >> licensing expert.
> >>
> >> I think it's reasonable to have 1 other offering only..
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> ilya
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:34 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
> >>
> >> 1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM?
> >> I've only seen Squeeze.
> >>
> >> 2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only
> one
> >> CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that CentOS
> has
> >> a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if I'm
> >> wrong.
> >>
> >> DL
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
> >> Sent: 12 December 2012 8:06 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> Your point is clear and well taken. Nobody wants to be in business
> of
> >> maintaining myriad of distros out there for something that should
> not
> >> be changed anyway.
> >>
> >> I see two solutions then:
> >>
> >> 1) update the existing debian wheezy image to reflect latest fixes -
> >> which is probably something that should do anyway.
> >>
> >> 2) maybe have a section of - "user submitted and unsupported"
> system
> >> offerings? We can clearly state - we support 1 type of offering and
> >> other offerings are optional and unsupported - but your own
> >> responsibility and should be used by advanced users only.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> -ilya
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:jzb@zonker.net]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:02 AM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> >> > This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own,
> >> > rather than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It
> >> > seems like it would be pretty simple and straightforward on the
> face
> >> > of it, however many of the scripts have been written specifically
> for
> >> > Debian. I'd honestly be ok with having to stick to a particular
> >> distro
> >> > if I at least had clear instructions on how to make my own, I
> >> > understand the need to program against a single defined userspace.
> >>
> >> I see a potential problem with this.
> >>
> >> Any scenario where users are customizing part of the stack means
> >> additional variables which means additional problems. If we target
> >> Debian, trying to create a system VM from CentOS/RHEL means
> different
> >> libraries, etc. - which means a number of potential problems
> cropping
> >> up where there were none before.
> >>
> >> I'm not saying users *shouldn't* be able to do this - just that I
> >> haven't noticed anyone raising the issue that we'll probably start
> >> seeing a fair number more bugs if replacing the system VM becomes a
> >> standard practice. There's a reason, for instance, that Linux
> vendors
> >> don't support custom kernels - and what's being proposed here is
> >> swapping out an entire OS.
> >>
> >> It's going to make things a bit more tricky when someone reports a
> bug
> >> and they're using a roll-your-own system VM and the people doing the
> >> testing are using a different one.
> >>
> >> Again - not saying we shouldn't do this, but I'd like to see that
> given
> >> a bit more consideration when we're discussing the issue.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> jzb
> >> --
> >> Joe Brockmeier
> >> jzb@zonker.net
> >> Twitter: @jzb
> >> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
No, buildsystemvm.sh does not run as part of maven. It pretty much runs
only on a debian Squeeze/wheezy box. It has the PV drivers but not the xs
tools required for live migration. The xs tools actually get in the way
since they enforce checks on os/hv compatibility in the source/destination
hypervisors. It has vmware tools as well.
On 12/13/12 3:20 PM, "Donal Lafferty" <do...@citrix.com> wrote:
>Hi Chiradeep,
>
>To clear up some confusion, does the current script (buildsystemvm.sh)
>run as part of the maven build?
>
>Again, to clear up some confusion, can you comment on whether
>buildsystem.sh adds pv-drivers need to a System VM? I was confused by
>comments last week about whether the VMM-specific tools/guest
>additions/integration services were required to be installed for a system
>VM to operate properly.
>
>DL
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com]
>Sent: 13 December 2012 11:00 PM
>To: CloudStack DeveloperList
>Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
>
>Yes, it is for performance reasons.
>CentOS
> -has a different place for network init scripts -has a different
>initialization scheme (chkconfig vs LSB init) -has a different place to
>initialize iptables
>
>Centos also may use GRUB-legacy vs GRUB2 for booting.
>The current systemvm uses GRUB-legacy since XS 5.6 only supported
>GRUB-legacy, but it might be time to move on.
>
>A more suitable systemvm build script might be based on veewee/vagrant,
>along with qemu-img to do the final conversion to vhd/qcow2
>
>--
>Chiradeep
>
>On 12/13/12 10:29 AM, "Anthony Xu" <Xu...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>>32-bit PV might have better performance than 64-bit PV on XEN, In 64
>>bit mode, there are only ring 0 and ring 3, both Guest OS and guest
>>application are running on ring3 , application system call needs to be
>>trapped into hypervisor and then be injected into guest OS.
>>In 32 bit mode, there are ring 0, 1, 2, 3. Guest OS is running on ring
>>1, application is running on ring 3, hypervisor doesn't need to trap
>>system call.
>>
>>That might be one of reasons dom0 is 32 bit in XenServer/XCP.
>>
>>Anthony
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:20 AM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>>
>>> The choice of 32-bit OS may be to support legacy servers, but I
>>> really don't know.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
>>> Sent: 13 December 2012 4:50 PM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>>
>>> I did.. reviewed buildsystemvm.sh script - seems self-explanatory.
>>>
>>> There are 2 major parts to this task as I see it.
>>>
>>> Part1
>>> System Image Side:
>>> We need to alter the "debootsrap" to "mock" and change debian
>>> specific configs to redhat. Once functional - I need to create 3
>>> versions of the template for VmWare, Xen and KVM. I have VmWare in
>>> house - no Xen/KVM yet - we can deal with this - once I get there.
>>>
>>> Part2
>>> Systemvm.iso will need to be updated and include rhel version of the
>>> patch scripts we run on power on.
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the reason for running 32bit OS vs 64? Are we open to
>>> changing that to 64bit - which would probably benefit very large
>>> implementations using basic zones. Or should we keep it 32 bit for
>>>consistency reason?
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 7:47 AM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>>
>>> WRT to CentOS. Did you survey the changes required?
>>>
>>> Would be great to have these on a wiki page for future reference and
>>> history tracking.
>>>
>>>
>>> DL
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
>>> Sent: 12 December 2012 9:33 PM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>>
>>> Donal
>>>
>>> See response in line..
>>>
>>> >> 1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM?
>>> I've only seen Squeeze.
>>>
>>> I confused the names - I think - its squeeze - wheezy is the latest
>>> offering with 3.x kernel. I guess by now you noticed I'm not debian
>>> user :)
>>>
>>> >> 2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and
>>> >> only
>>> one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that
>>> CentOS has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct
>>> me if I'm wrong.
>>>
>>> I'm under impression CentOS has very liberal licensing structure. I
>>> don't believe we should have an issue here - but I'm by no means a
>>> licensing expert.
>>>
>>> I think it's reasonable to have 1 other offering only..
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> ilya
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:34 PM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>>
>>> 1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM?
>>> I've only seen Squeeze.
>>>
>>> 2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only
>>> one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that
>>> CentOS has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct
>>> me if I'm wrong.
>>>
>>> DL
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
>>> Sent: 12 December 2012 8:06 PM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> Your point is clear and well taken. Nobody wants to be in business of
>>> maintaining myriad of distros out there for something that should not
>>> be changed anyway.
>>>
>>> I see two solutions then:
>>>
>>> 1) update the existing debian wheezy image to reflect latest fixes -
>>> which is probably something that should do anyway.
>>>
>>> 2) maybe have a section of - "user submitted and unsupported" system
>>> offerings? We can clearly state - we support 1 type of offering and
>>> other offerings are optional and unsupported - but your own
>>> responsibility and should be used by advanced users only.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> -ilya
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:jzb@zonker.net]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:02 AM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
>>> > This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own,
>>> > rather than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It
>>> > seems like it would be pretty simple and straightforward on the
>>> > face of it, however many of the scripts have been written
>>> > specifically for Debian. I'd honestly be ok with having to stick to
>>> > a particular
>>> distro
>>> > if I at least had clear instructions on how to make my own, I
>>> > understand the need to program against a single defined userspace.
>>>
>>> I see a potential problem with this.
>>>
>>> Any scenario where users are customizing part of the stack means
>>> additional variables which means additional problems. If we target
>>> Debian, trying to create a system VM from CentOS/RHEL means different
>>> libraries, etc. - which means a number of potential problems cropping
>>> up where there were none before.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying users *shouldn't* be able to do this - just that I
>>> haven't noticed anyone raising the issue that we'll probably start
>>> seeing a fair number more bugs if replacing the system VM becomes a
>>> standard practice. There's a reason, for instance, that Linux vendors
>>> don't support custom kernels - and what's being proposed here is
>>> swapping out an entire OS.
>>>
>>> It's going to make things a bit more tricky when someone reports a
>>> bug and they're using a roll-your-own system VM and the people doing
>>> the testing are using a different one.
>>>
>>> Again - not saying we shouldn't do this, but I'd like to see that
>>> given a bit more consideration when we're discussing the issue.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> jzb
>>> --
>>> Joe Brockmeier
>>> jzb@zonker.net
>>> Twitter: @jzb
>>> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by Donal Lafferty <do...@citrix.com>.
Hi Chiradeep,
To clear up some confusion, does the current script (buildsystemvm.sh) run as part of the maven build?
Again, to clear up some confusion, can you comment on whether buildsystem.sh adds pv-drivers need to a System VM? I was confused by comments last week about whether the VMM-specific tools/guest additions/integration services were required to be installed for a system VM to operate properly.
DL
-----Original Message-----
From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com]
Sent: 13 December 2012 11:00 PM
To: CloudStack DeveloperList
Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
Yes, it is for performance reasons.
CentOS
-has a different place for network init scripts -has a different initialization scheme (chkconfig vs LSB init) -has a different place to initialize iptables
Centos also may use GRUB-legacy vs GRUB2 for booting.
The current systemvm uses GRUB-legacy since XS 5.6 only supported GRUB-legacy, but it might be time to move on.
A more suitable systemvm build script might be based on veewee/vagrant, along with qemu-img to do the final conversion to vhd/qcow2
--
Chiradeep
On 12/13/12 10:29 AM, "Anthony Xu" <Xu...@citrix.com> wrote:
>32-bit PV might have better performance than 64-bit PV on XEN, In 64
>bit mode, there are only ring 0 and ring 3, both Guest OS and guest
>application are running on ring3 , application system call needs to be
>trapped into hypervisor and then be injected into guest OS.
>In 32 bit mode, there are ring 0, 1, 2, 3. Guest OS is running on ring
>1, application is running on ring 3, hypervisor doesn't need to trap
>system call.
>
>That might be one of reasons dom0 is 32 bit in XenServer/XCP.
>
>Anthony
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:20 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>
>> The choice of 32-bit OS may be to support legacy servers, but I
>> really don't know.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
>> Sent: 13 December 2012 4:50 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>
>> I did.. reviewed buildsystemvm.sh script - seems self-explanatory.
>>
>> There are 2 major parts to this task as I see it.
>>
>> Part1
>> System Image Side:
>> We need to alter the "debootsrap" to "mock" and change debian
>> specific configs to redhat. Once functional - I need to create 3
>> versions of the template for VmWare, Xen and KVM. I have VmWare in
>> house - no Xen/KVM yet - we can deal with this - once I get there.
>>
>> Part2
>> Systemvm.iso will need to be updated and include rhel version of the
>> patch scripts we run on power on.
>>
>>
>> What is the reason for running 32bit OS vs 64? Are we open to
>> changing that to 64bit - which would probably benefit very large
>> implementations using basic zones. Or should we keep it 32 bit for consistency reason?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 7:47 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>
>> WRT to CentOS. Did you survey the changes required?
>>
>> Would be great to have these on a wiki page for future reference and
>> history tracking.
>>
>>
>> DL
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
>> Sent: 12 December 2012 9:33 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>
>> Donal
>>
>> See response in line..
>>
>> >> 1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM?
>> I've only seen Squeeze.
>>
>> I confused the names - I think - its squeeze - wheezy is the latest
>> offering with 3.x kernel. I guess by now you noticed I'm not debian
>> user :)
>>
>> >> 2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and
>> >> only
>> one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that
>> CentOS has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct
>> me if I'm wrong.
>>
>> I'm under impression CentOS has very liberal licensing structure. I
>> don't believe we should have an issue here - but I'm by no means a
>> licensing expert.
>>
>> I think it's reasonable to have 1 other offering only..
>>
>> Thanks
>> ilya
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:34 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>
>> 1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM?
>> I've only seen Squeeze.
>>
>> 2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only
>> one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that
>> CentOS has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct
>> me if I'm wrong.
>>
>> DL
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
>> Sent: 12 December 2012 8:06 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> Your point is clear and well taken. Nobody wants to be in business of
>> maintaining myriad of distros out there for something that should not
>> be changed anyway.
>>
>> I see two solutions then:
>>
>> 1) update the existing debian wheezy image to reflect latest fixes -
>> which is probably something that should do anyway.
>>
>> 2) maybe have a section of - "user submitted and unsupported" system
>> offerings? We can clearly state - we support 1 type of offering and
>> other offerings are optional and unsupported - but your own
>> responsibility and should be used by advanced users only.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Regards
>> -ilya
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:jzb@zonker.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:02 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
>> > This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own,
>> > rather than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It
>> > seems like it would be pretty simple and straightforward on the
>> > face of it, however many of the scripts have been written
>> > specifically for Debian. I'd honestly be ok with having to stick to
>> > a particular
>> distro
>> > if I at least had clear instructions on how to make my own, I
>> > understand the need to program against a single defined userspace.
>>
>> I see a potential problem with this.
>>
>> Any scenario where users are customizing part of the stack means
>> additional variables which means additional problems. If we target
>> Debian, trying to create a system VM from CentOS/RHEL means different
>> libraries, etc. - which means a number of potential problems cropping
>> up where there were none before.
>>
>> I'm not saying users *shouldn't* be able to do this - just that I
>> haven't noticed anyone raising the issue that we'll probably start
>> seeing a fair number more bugs if replacing the system VM becomes a
>> standard practice. There's a reason, for instance, that Linux vendors
>> don't support custom kernels - and what's being proposed here is
>> swapping out an entire OS.
>>
>> It's going to make things a bit more tricky when someone reports a
>> bug and they're using a roll-your-own system VM and the people doing
>> the testing are using a different one.
>>
>> Again - not saying we shouldn't do this, but I'd like to see that
>> given a bit more consideration when we're discussing the issue.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> jzb
>> --
>> Joe Brockmeier
>> jzb@zonker.net
>> Twitter: @jzb
>> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
Yes, it is for performance reasons.
CentOS
-has a different place for network init scripts
-has a different initialization scheme (chkconfig vs LSB init)
-has a different place to initialize iptables
Centos also may use GRUB-legacy vs GRUB2 for booting.
The current systemvm uses GRUB-legacy since XS 5.6 only supported
GRUB-legacy, but it might be time to move on.
A more suitable systemvm build script might be based on veewee/vagrant,
along with qemu-img to do the final conversion to vhd/qcow2
--
Chiradeep
On 12/13/12 10:29 AM, "Anthony Xu" <Xu...@citrix.com> wrote:
>32-bit PV might have better performance than 64-bit PV on XEN,
>In 64 bit mode, there are only ring 0 and ring 3, both Guest OS and guest
>application are running on ring3 , application system call needs to be
>trapped into hypervisor and then be injected into guest OS.
>In 32 bit mode, there are ring 0, 1, 2, 3. Guest OS is running on ring
>1, application is running on ring 3, hypervisor doesn't need to trap
>system call.
>
>That might be one of reasons dom0 is 32 bit in XenServer/XCP.
>
>Anthony
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:20 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>
>> The choice of 32-bit OS may be to support legacy servers, but I really
>> don't know.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
>> Sent: 13 December 2012 4:50 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>
>> I did.. reviewed buildsystemvm.sh script - seems self-explanatory.
>>
>> There are 2 major parts to this task as I see it.
>>
>> Part1
>> System Image Side:
>> We need to alter the "debootsrap" to "mock" and change debian specific
>> configs to redhat. Once functional - I need to create 3 versions of
>> the template for VmWare, Xen and KVM. I have VmWare in house - no
>> Xen/KVM yet - we can deal with this - once I get there.
>>
>> Part2
>> Systemvm.iso will need to be updated and include rhel version of the
>> patch scripts we run on power on.
>>
>>
>> What is the reason for running 32bit OS vs 64? Are we open to changing
>> that to 64bit - which would probably benefit very large implementations
>> using basic zones. Or should we keep it 32 bit for consistency reason?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 7:47 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>
>> WRT to CentOS. Did you survey the changes required?
>>
>> Would be great to have these on a wiki page for future reference and
>> history tracking.
>>
>>
>> DL
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
>> Sent: 12 December 2012 9:33 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>
>> Donal
>>
>> See response in line..
>>
>> >> 1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM?
>> I've only seen Squeeze.
>>
>> I confused the names - I think - its squeeze - wheezy is the latest
>> offering with 3.x kernel. I guess by now you noticed I'm not debian
>> user :)
>>
>> >> 2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only
>> one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that CentOS
>> has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if
>> I'm wrong.
>>
>> I'm under impression CentOS has very liberal licensing structure. I
>> don't believe we should have an issue here - but I'm by no means a
>> licensing expert.
>>
>> I think it's reasonable to have 1 other offering only..
>>
>> Thanks
>> ilya
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:34 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>
>> 1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM?
>> I've only seen Squeeze.
>>
>> 2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only one
>> CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that CentOS has
>> a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if I'm
>> wrong.
>>
>> DL
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
>> Sent: 12 December 2012 8:06 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> Your point is clear and well taken. Nobody wants to be in business of
>> maintaining myriad of distros out there for something that should not
>> be changed anyway.
>>
>> I see two solutions then:
>>
>> 1) update the existing debian wheezy image to reflect latest fixes -
>> which is probably something that should do anyway.
>>
>> 2) maybe have a section of - "user submitted and unsupported" system
>> offerings? We can clearly state - we support 1 type of offering and
>> other offerings are optional and unsupported - but your own
>> responsibility and should be used by advanced users only.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Regards
>> -ilya
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:jzb@zonker.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:02 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
>> > This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own,
>> > rather than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It
>> > seems like it would be pretty simple and straightforward on the face
>> > of it, however many of the scripts have been written specifically for
>> > Debian. I'd honestly be ok with having to stick to a particular
>> distro
>> > if I at least had clear instructions on how to make my own, I
>> > understand the need to program against a single defined userspace.
>>
>> I see a potential problem with this.
>>
>> Any scenario where users are customizing part of the stack means
>> additional variables which means additional problems. If we target
>> Debian, trying to create a system VM from CentOS/RHEL means different
>> libraries, etc. - which means a number of potential problems cropping
>> up where there were none before.
>>
>> I'm not saying users *shouldn't* be able to do this - just that I
>> haven't noticed anyone raising the issue that we'll probably start
>> seeing a fair number more bugs if replacing the system VM becomes a
>> standard practice. There's a reason, for instance, that Linux vendors
>> don't support custom kernels - and what's being proposed here is
>> swapping out an entire OS.
>>
>> It's going to make things a bit more tricky when someone reports a bug
>> and they're using a roll-your-own system VM and the people doing the
>> testing are using a different one.
>>
>> Again - not saying we shouldn't do this, but I'd like to see that given
>> a bit more consideration when we're discussing the issue.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> jzb
>> --
>> Joe Brockmeier
>> jzb@zonker.net
>> Twitter: @jzb
>> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by Anthony Xu <Xu...@citrix.com>.
32-bit PV might have better performance than 64-bit PV on XEN,
In 64 bit mode, there are only ring 0 and ring 3, both Guest OS and guest application are running on ring3 , application system call needs to be trapped into hypervisor and then be injected into guest OS.
In 32 bit mode, there are ring 0, 1, 2, 3. Guest OS is running on ring 1, application is running on ring 3, hypervisor doesn't need to trap system call.
That might be one of reasons dom0 is 32 bit in XenServer/XCP.
Anthony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:20 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>
> The choice of 32-bit OS may be to support legacy servers, but I really
> don't know.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
> Sent: 13 December 2012 4:50 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>
> I did.. reviewed buildsystemvm.sh script - seems self-explanatory.
>
> There are 2 major parts to this task as I see it.
>
> Part1
> System Image Side:
> We need to alter the "debootsrap" to "mock" and change debian specific
> configs to redhat. Once functional - I need to create 3 versions of
> the template for VmWare, Xen and KVM. I have VmWare in house - no
> Xen/KVM yet - we can deal with this - once I get there.
>
> Part2
> Systemvm.iso will need to be updated and include rhel version of the
> patch scripts we run on power on.
>
>
> What is the reason for running 32bit OS vs 64? Are we open to changing
> that to 64bit - which would probably benefit very large implementations
> using basic zones. Or should we keep it 32 bit for consistency reason?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 7:47 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>
> WRT to CentOS. Did you survey the changes required?
>
> Would be great to have these on a wiki page for future reference and
> history tracking.
>
>
> DL
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
> Sent: 12 December 2012 9:33 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>
> Donal
>
> See response in line..
>
> >> 1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM?
> I've only seen Squeeze.
>
> I confused the names - I think - its squeeze - wheezy is the latest
> offering with 3.x kernel. I guess by now you noticed I'm not debian
> user :)
>
> >> 2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only
> one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that CentOS
> has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if
> I'm wrong.
>
> I'm under impression CentOS has very liberal licensing structure. I
> don't believe we should have an issue here - but I'm by no means a
> licensing expert.
>
> I think it's reasonable to have 1 other offering only..
>
> Thanks
> ilya
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:34 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>
> 1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM?
> I've only seen Squeeze.
>
> 2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only one
> CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that CentOS has
> a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if I'm
> wrong.
>
> DL
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
> Sent: 12 December 2012 8:06 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
>
> Joe
>
> Your point is clear and well taken. Nobody wants to be in business of
> maintaining myriad of distros out there for something that should not
> be changed anyway.
>
> I see two solutions then:
>
> 1) update the existing debian wheezy image to reflect latest fixes -
> which is probably something that should do anyway.
>
> 2) maybe have a section of - "user submitted and unsupported" system
> offerings? We can clearly state - we support 1 type of offering and
> other offerings are optional and unsupported - but your own
> responsibility and should be used by advanced users only.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards
> -ilya
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:jzb@zonker.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:02 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> > This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own,
> > rather than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It
> > seems like it would be pretty simple and straightforward on the face
> > of it, however many of the scripts have been written specifically for
> > Debian. I'd honestly be ok with having to stick to a particular
> distro
> > if I at least had clear instructions on how to make my own, I
> > understand the need to program against a single defined userspace.
>
> I see a potential problem with this.
>
> Any scenario where users are customizing part of the stack means
> additional variables which means additional problems. If we target
> Debian, trying to create a system VM from CentOS/RHEL means different
> libraries, etc. - which means a number of potential problems cropping
> up where there were none before.
>
> I'm not saying users *shouldn't* be able to do this - just that I
> haven't noticed anyone raising the issue that we'll probably start
> seeing a fair number more bugs if replacing the system VM becomes a
> standard practice. There's a reason, for instance, that Linux vendors
> don't support custom kernels - and what's being proposed here is
> swapping out an entire OS.
>
> It's going to make things a bit more tricky when someone reports a bug
> and they're using a roll-your-own system VM and the people doing the
> testing are using a different one.
>
> Again - not saying we shouldn't do this, but I'd like to see that given
> a bit more consideration when we're discussing the issue.
>
> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
>
>
>
>
RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by Donal Lafferty <do...@citrix.com>.
The choice of 32-bit OS may be to support legacy servers, but I really don't know.
-----Original Message-----
From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
Sent: 13 December 2012 4:50 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
I did.. reviewed buildsystemvm.sh script - seems self-explanatory.
There are 2 major parts to this task as I see it.
Part1
System Image Side:
We need to alter the "debootsrap" to "mock" and change debian specific configs to redhat. Once functional - I need to create 3 versions of the template for VmWare, Xen and KVM. I have VmWare in house - no Xen/KVM yet - we can deal with this - once I get there.
Part2
Systemvm.iso will need to be updated and include rhel version of the patch scripts we run on power on.
What is the reason for running 32bit OS vs 64? Are we open to changing that to 64bit - which would probably benefit very large implementations using basic zones. Or should we keep it 32 bit for consistency reason?
-----Original Message-----
From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 7:47 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
WRT to CentOS. Did you survey the changes required?
Would be great to have these on a wiki page for future reference and history tracking.
DL
-----Original Message-----
From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
Sent: 12 December 2012 9:33 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Donal
See response in line..
>> 1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM? I've only seen Squeeze.
I confused the names - I think - its squeeze - wheezy is the latest offering with 3.x kernel. I guess by now you noticed I'm not debian user :)
>> 2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that CentOS has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm under impression CentOS has very liberal licensing structure. I don't believe we should have an issue here - but I'm by no means a licensing expert.
I think it's reasonable to have 1 other offering only..
Thanks
ilya
-----Original Message-----
From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:34 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM? I've only seen Squeeze.
2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that CentOS has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if I'm wrong.
DL
-----Original Message-----
From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
Sent: 12 December 2012 8:06 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Joe
Your point is clear and well taken. Nobody wants to be in business of maintaining myriad of distros out there for something that should not be changed anyway.
I see two solutions then:
1) update the existing debian wheezy image to reflect latest fixes - which is probably something that should do anyway.
2) maybe have a section of - "user submitted and unsupported" system offerings? We can clearly state - we support 1 type of offering and other offerings are optional and unsupported - but your own responsibility and should be used by advanced users only.
Thoughts?
Regards
-ilya
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:jzb@zonker.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:02 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own,
> rather than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It
> seems like it would be pretty simple and straightforward on the face
> of it, however many of the scripts have been written specifically for
> Debian. I'd honestly be ok with having to stick to a particular distro
> if I at least had clear instructions on how to make my own, I
> understand the need to program against a single defined userspace.
I see a potential problem with this.
Any scenario where users are customizing part of the stack means additional variables which means additional problems. If we target Debian, trying to create a system VM from CentOS/RHEL means different libraries, etc. - which means a number of potential problems cropping up where there were none before.
I'm not saying users *shouldn't* be able to do this - just that I haven't noticed anyone raising the issue that we'll probably start seeing a fair number more bugs if replacing the system VM becomes a standard practice. There's a reason, for instance, that Linux vendors don't support custom kernels - and what's being proposed here is swapping out an entire OS.
It's going to make things a bit more tricky when someone reports a bug and they're using a roll-your-own system VM and the people doing the testing are using a different one.
Again - not saying we shouldn't do this, but I'd like to see that given a bit more consideration when we're discussing the issue.
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net>.
I did.. reviewed buildsystemvm.sh script - seems self-explanatory.
There are 2 major parts to this task as I see it.
Part1
System Image Side:
We need to alter the "debootsrap" to "mock" and change debian specific configs to redhat. Once functional - I need to create 3 versions of the template for VmWare, Xen and KVM. I have VmWare in house - no Xen/KVM yet - we can deal with this - once I get there.
Part2
Systemvm.iso will need to be updated and include rhel version of the patch scripts we run on power on.
What is the reason for running 32bit OS vs 64? Are we open to changing that to 64bit - which would probably benefit very large implementations using basic zones. Or should we keep it 32 bit for consistency reason?
-----Original Message-----
From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 7:47 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
WRT to CentOS. Did you survey the changes required?
Would be great to have these on a wiki page for future reference and history tracking.
DL
-----Original Message-----
From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
Sent: 12 December 2012 9:33 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Donal
See response in line..
>> 1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM? I've only seen Squeeze.
I confused the names - I think - its squeeze - wheezy is the latest offering with 3.x kernel. I guess by now you noticed I'm not debian user :)
>> 2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that CentOS has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm under impression CentOS has very liberal licensing structure. I don't believe we should have an issue here - but I'm by no means a licensing expert.
I think it's reasonable to have 1 other offering only..
Thanks
ilya
-----Original Message-----
From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:34 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM? I've only seen Squeeze.
2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that CentOS has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if I'm wrong.
DL
-----Original Message-----
From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
Sent: 12 December 2012 8:06 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Joe
Your point is clear and well taken. Nobody wants to be in business of maintaining myriad of distros out there for something that should not be changed anyway.
I see two solutions then:
1) update the existing debian wheezy image to reflect latest fixes - which is probably something that should do anyway.
2) maybe have a section of - "user submitted and unsupported" system offerings? We can clearly state - we support 1 type of offering and other offerings are optional and unsupported - but your own responsibility and should be used by advanced users only.
Thoughts?
Regards
-ilya
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:jzb@zonker.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:02 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own,
> rather than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It
> seems like it would be pretty simple and straightforward on the face
> of it, however many of the scripts have been written specifically for
> Debian. I'd honestly be ok with having to stick to a particular distro
> if I at least had clear instructions on how to make my own, I
> understand the need to program against a single defined userspace.
I see a potential problem with this.
Any scenario where users are customizing part of the stack means additional variables which means additional problems. If we target Debian, trying to create a system VM from CentOS/RHEL means different libraries, etc. - which means a number of potential problems cropping up where there were none before.
I'm not saying users *shouldn't* be able to do this - just that I haven't noticed anyone raising the issue that we'll probably start seeing a fair number more bugs if replacing the system VM becomes a standard practice. There's a reason, for instance, that Linux vendors don't support custom kernels - and what's being proposed here is swapping out an entire OS.
It's going to make things a bit more tricky when someone reports a bug and they're using a roll-your-own system VM and the people doing the testing are using a different one.
Again - not saying we shouldn't do this, but I'd like to see that given a bit more consideration when we're discussing the issue.
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by Donal Lafferty <do...@citrix.com>.
WRT to CentOS. Did you survey the changes required?
Would be great to have these on a wiki page for future reference and history tracking.
DL
-----Original Message-----
From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
Sent: 12 December 2012 9:33 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Donal
See response in line..
>> 1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM? I've only seen Squeeze.
I confused the names - I think - its squeeze - wheezy is the latest offering with 3.x kernel. I guess by now you noticed I'm not debian user :)
>> 2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that CentOS has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm under impression CentOS has very liberal licensing structure. I don't believe we should have an issue here - but I'm by no means a licensing expert.
I think it's reasonable to have 1 other offering only..
Thanks
ilya
-----Original Message-----
From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:34 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM? I've only seen Squeeze.
2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that CentOS has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if I'm wrong.
DL
-----Original Message-----
From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
Sent: 12 December 2012 8:06 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Joe
Your point is clear and well taken. Nobody wants to be in business of maintaining myriad of distros out there for something that should not be changed anyway.
I see two solutions then:
1) update the existing debian wheezy image to reflect latest fixes - which is probably something that should do anyway.
2) maybe have a section of - "user submitted and unsupported" system offerings? We can clearly state - we support 1 type of offering and other offerings are optional and unsupported - but your own responsibility and should be used by advanced users only.
Thoughts?
Regards
-ilya
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:jzb@zonker.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:02 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own,
> rather than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It
> seems like it would be pretty simple and straightforward on the face
> of it, however many of the scripts have been written specifically for
> Debian. I'd honestly be ok with having to stick to a particular distro
> if I at least had clear instructions on how to make my own, I
> understand the need to program against a single defined userspace.
I see a potential problem with this.
Any scenario where users are customizing part of the stack means additional variables which means additional problems. If we target Debian, trying to create a system VM from CentOS/RHEL means different libraries, etc. - which means a number of potential problems cropping up where there were none before.
I'm not saying users *shouldn't* be able to do this - just that I haven't noticed anyone raising the issue that we'll probably start seeing a fair number more bugs if replacing the system VM becomes a standard practice. There's a reason, for instance, that Linux vendors don't support custom kernels - and what's being proposed here is swapping out an entire OS.
It's going to make things a bit more tricky when someone reports a bug and they're using a roll-your-own system VM and the people doing the testing are using a different one.
Again - not saying we shouldn't do this, but I'd like to see that given a bit more consideration when we're discussing the issue.
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net>.
Donal
See response in line..
>> 1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM? I've only seen Squeeze.
I confused the names - I think - its squeeze - wheezy is the latest offering with 3.x kernel. I guess by now you noticed I'm not debian user :)
>> 2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that CentOS has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm under impression CentOS has very liberal licensing structure. I don't believe we should have an issue here - but I'm by no means a licensing expert.
I think it's reasonable to have 1 other offering only..
Thanks
ilya
-----Original Message-----
From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:34 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM? I've only seen Squeeze.
2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that CentOS has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if I'm wrong.
DL
-----Original Message-----
From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
Sent: 12 December 2012 8:06 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Joe
Your point is clear and well taken. Nobody wants to be in business of maintaining myriad of distros out there for something that should not be changed anyway.
I see two solutions then:
1) update the existing debian wheezy image to reflect latest fixes - which is probably something that should do anyway.
2) maybe have a section of - "user submitted and unsupported" system offerings? We can clearly state - we support 1 type of offering and other offerings are optional and unsupported - but your own responsibility and should be used by advanced users only.
Thoughts?
Regards
-ilya
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:jzb@zonker.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:02 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own,
> rather than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It
> seems like it would be pretty simple and straightforward on the face
> of it, however many of the scripts have been written specifically for
> Debian. I'd honestly be ok with having to stick to a particular distro
> if I at least had clear instructions on how to make my own, I
> understand the need to program against a single defined userspace.
I see a potential problem with this.
Any scenario where users are customizing part of the stack means additional variables which means additional problems. If we target Debian, trying to create a system VM from CentOS/RHEL means different libraries, etc. - which means a number of potential problems cropping up where there were none before.
I'm not saying users *shouldn't* be able to do this - just that I haven't noticed anyone raising the issue that we'll probably start seeing a fair number more bugs if replacing the system VM becomes a standard practice. There's a reason, for instance, that Linux vendors don't support custom kernels - and what's being proposed here is swapping out an entire OS.
It's going to make things a bit more tricky when someone reports a bug and they're using a roll-your-own system VM and the people doing the testing are using a different one.
Again - not saying we shouldn't do this, but I'd like to see that given a bit more consideration when we're discussing the issue.
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by Donal Lafferty <do...@citrix.com>.
1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM? I've only seen Squeeze.
2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that CentOS has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if I'm wrong.
DL
-----Original Message-----
From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
Sent: 12 December 2012 8:06 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Joe
Your point is clear and well taken. Nobody wants to be in business of maintaining myriad of distros out there for something that should not be changed anyway.
I see two solutions then:
1) update the existing debian wheezy image to reflect latest fixes - which is probably something that should do anyway.
2) maybe have a section of - "user submitted and unsupported" system offerings? We can clearly state - we support 1 type of offering and other offerings are optional and unsupported - but your own responsibility and should be used by advanced users only.
Thoughts?
Regards
-ilya
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:jzb@zonker.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:02 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own,
> rather than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It
> seems like it would be pretty simple and straightforward on the face
> of it, however many of the scripts have been written specifically for
> Debian. I'd honestly be ok with having to stick to a particular distro
> if I at least had clear instructions on how to make my own, I
> understand the need to program against a single defined userspace.
I see a potential problem with this.
Any scenario where users are customizing part of the stack means additional variables which means additional problems. If we target Debian, trying to create a system VM from CentOS/RHEL means different libraries, etc. - which means a number of potential problems cropping up where there were none before.
I'm not saying users *shouldn't* be able to do this - just that I haven't noticed anyone raising the issue that we'll probably start seeing a fair number more bugs if replacing the system VM becomes a standard practice. There's a reason, for instance, that Linux vendors don't support custom kernels - and what's being proposed here is swapping out an entire OS.
It's going to make things a bit more tricky when someone reports a bug and they're using a roll-your-own system VM and the people doing the testing are using a different one.
Again - not saying we shouldn't do this, but I'd like to see that given a bit more consideration when we're discussing the issue.
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net>.
Joe
Your point is clear and well taken. Nobody wants to be in business of maintaining myriad of distros out there for something that should not be changed anyway.
I see two solutions then:
1) update the existing debian wheezy image to reflect latest fixes - which is probably something that should do anyway.
2) maybe have a section of - "user submitted and unsupported" system offerings? We can clearly state - we support 1 type of offering and other offerings are optional and unsupported - but your own responsibility and should be used by advanced users only.
Thoughts?
Regards
-ilya
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:jzb@zonker.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:02 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own,
> rather than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It
> seems like it would be pretty simple and straightforward on the face
> of it, however many of the scripts have been written specifically for
> Debian. I'd honestly be ok with having to stick to a particular distro
> if I at least had clear instructions on how to make my own, I
> understand the need to program against a single defined userspace.
I see a potential problem with this.
Any scenario where users are customizing part of the stack means additional variables which means additional problems. If we target Debian, trying to create a system VM from CentOS/RHEL means different libraries, etc. - which means a number of potential problems cropping up where there were none before.
I'm not saying users *shouldn't* be able to do this - just that I haven't noticed anyone raising the issue that we'll probably start seeing a fair number more bugs if replacing the system VM becomes a standard practice. There's a reason, for instance, that Linux vendors don't support custom kernels - and what's being proposed here is swapping out an entire OS.
It's going to make things a bit more tricky when someone reports a bug and they're using a roll-your-own system VM and the people doing the testing are using a different one.
Again - not saying we shouldn't do this, but I'd like to see that given a bit more consideration when we're discussing the issue.
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own,
> rather
> than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It seems like it
> would be pretty simple and straightforward on the face of it, however
> many
> of the scripts have been written specifically for Debian. I'd honestly be
> ok with having to stick to a particular distro if I at least had clear
> instructions on how to make my own, I understand the need to program
> against a single defined userspace.
I see a potential problem with this.
Any scenario where users are customizing part of the stack means
additional variables which means additional problems. If we target
Debian, trying to create a system VM from CentOS/RHEL means different
libraries, etc. - which means a number of potential problems cropping up
where there were none before.
I'm not saying users *shouldn't* be able to do this - just that I
haven't noticed anyone raising the issue that we'll probably start
seeing a fair number more bugs if replacing the system VM becomes a
standard practice. There's a reason, for instance, that Linux vendors
don't support custom kernels - and what's being proposed here is
swapping out an entire OS.
It's going to make things a bit more tricky when someone reports a bug
and they're using a roll-your-own system VM and the people doing the
testing are using a different one.
Again - not saying we shouldn't do this, but I'd like to see that given
a bit more consideration when we're discussing the issue.
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net>.
Donal,
This definitely brings me much closer.. I need to alter this script to use fedora "mock" instead of "debootstrap" and all debian configs must be replaced with redhats.
Thank you
-ilya
-----Original Message-----
From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.lafferty@citrix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:48 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Is ./patches/systemvm/debian/buildsystemvm.sh what you're looking for?
It targets Debian Squeeze and includes the latest security updates.
I'd be keen to know if it is triggered by a mvn build and how I can use its outputs.
DL
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 December 2012 5:33 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own, rather than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It seems like it would be pretty simple and straightforward on the face of it, however many of the scripts have been written specifically for Debian. I'd honestly be ok with having to stick to a particular distro if I at least had clear instructions on how to make my own, I understand the need to program against a single defined userspace.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Musayev, Ilya <im...@webmd.net> wrote:
> I'd like to resurrect this thread - as the other thread got carried
> away into Vyatta conversation.
>
> My reasoning behind this move - is due to e1000 bug that affects
> Debian Wheezy, vSphere 5.0 (and possibly newer 5.1) and the router VM
> in Advanced Network Zone. While I could spent lots of time
> troubleshooting this issue - my environment is mostly RHEL/CentOS
> based and therefore - it would not hurt to have multiple flavors.
>
> I'm also a lot more comfortable with RHEL based distros - but that
> just my preference.
>
> In addition, this would be a good learning experience and I plan to
> document on how to create your custom system offerings. I also plan to
> add on more features than whats currently available - one of them
> being nginx - and more to come as need arises. The end goal is to
> have an automated solution using kickstart scripts that will be easy
> to upgrade and built on any platform.
>
> I could probably reverse engineer the existing System Offerings - but
> anything that could save my time in this effort - would be truly
> appreciated.
>
> With this in mind - I'm looking for any existing documentation that
> would describe the steps in achieving this goal.
>
> If you would like to join me in this effort - please let me know.
>
> Thanks
> ilya
>
RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by Donal Lafferty <do...@citrix.com>.
Is ./patches/systemvm/debian/buildsystemvm.sh what you're looking for?
It targets Debian Squeeze and includes the latest security updates.
I'd be keen to know if it is triggered by a mvn build and how I can use its outputs.
DL
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 December 2012 5:33 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own, rather than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It seems like it would be pretty simple and straightforward on the face of it, however many of the scripts have been written specifically for Debian. I'd honestly be ok with having to stick to a particular distro if I at least had clear instructions on how to make my own, I understand the need to program against a single defined userspace.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Musayev, Ilya <im...@webmd.net> wrote:
> I'd like to resurrect this thread - as the other thread got carried
> away into Vyatta conversation.
>
> My reasoning behind this move - is due to e1000 bug that affects
> Debian Wheezy, vSphere 5.0 (and possibly newer 5.1) and the router VM
> in Advanced Network Zone. While I could spent lots of time
> troubleshooting this issue - my environment is mostly RHEL/CentOS
> based and therefore - it would not hurt to have multiple flavors.
>
> I'm also a lot more comfortable with RHEL based distros - but that
> just my preference.
>
> In addition, this would be a good learning experience and I plan to
> document on how to create your custom system offerings. I also plan to
> add on more features than whats currently available - one of them
> being nginx - and more to come as need arises. The end goal is to
> have an automated solution using kickstart scripts that will be easy
> to upgrade and built on any platform.
>
> I could probably reverse engineer the existing System Offerings - but
> anything that could save my time in this effort - would be truly
> appreciated.
>
> With this in mind - I'm looking for any existing documentation that
> would describe the steps in achieving this goal.
>
> If you would like to join me in this effort - please let me know.
>
> Thanks
> ilya
>
Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>.
This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own, rather
than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It seems like it
would be pretty simple and straightforward on the face of it, however many
of the scripts have been written specifically for Debian. I'd honestly be
ok with having to stick to a particular distro if I at least had clear
instructions on how to make my own, I understand the need to program
against a single defined userspace.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Musayev, Ilya <im...@webmd.net> wrote:
> I'd like to resurrect this thread - as the other thread got carried away
> into Vyatta conversation.
>
> My reasoning behind this move - is due to e1000 bug that affects Debian
> Wheezy, vSphere 5.0 (and possibly newer 5.1) and the router VM in Advanced
> Network Zone. While I could spent lots of time troubleshooting this issue -
> my environment is mostly RHEL/CentOS based and therefore - it would not
> hurt to have multiple flavors.
>
> I'm also a lot more comfortable with RHEL based distros - but that just my
> preference.
>
> In addition, this would be a good learning experience and I plan to
> document on how to create your custom system offerings. I also plan to add
> on more features than whats currently available - one of them being nginx -
> and more to come as need arises. The end goal is to have an automated
> solution using kickstart scripts that will be easy to upgrade and built on
> any platform.
>
> I could probably reverse engineer the existing System Offerings - but
> anything that could save my time in this effort - would be truly
> appreciated.
>
> With this in mind - I'm looking for any existing documentation that would
> describe the steps in achieving this goal.
>
> If you would like to join me in this effort - please let me know.
>
> Thanks
> ilya
>
Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
Ilya,
I just added you as a contributor, which should give you more
permissions in Jira.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Musayev, Ilya <im...@webmd.net> wrote:
> Hi Wido,
>
> If no-one is taking ticket 451, I'll take this on. I cant assign this to myself - so if someone with higher privileges can do that - that would be great.
>
> I will create CentOS 6.3 based distro with latest patches. I'm a bit uncertain on the reason behind using a 32bit system vs 64bit as network offering. If it's strictly from the memory utilization perspective - as 32 bit tends to be a little lean on memory - I understand.
>
> What was the reason for going with 32 bit OS on Debian Squeezy and not 64?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:wido@widodh.nl]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 3:20 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
>
> Hi,
>
> I created two Jira tickets about this about a month ago:
> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-450
> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-451
>
> They might be worth looking at!
>
> Wido
>
> On 12/12/2012 05:14 AM, Musayev, Ilya wrote:
>> I'd like to resurrect this thread - as the other thread got carried away into Vyatta conversation.
>>
>> My reasoning behind this move - is due to e1000 bug that affects Debian Wheezy, vSphere 5.0 (and possibly newer 5.1) and the router VM in Advanced Network Zone. While I could spent lots of time troubleshooting this issue - my environment is mostly RHEL/CentOS based and therefore - it would not hurt to have multiple flavors.
>>
>> I'm also a lot more comfortable with RHEL based distros - but that just my preference.
>>
>> In addition, this would be a good learning experience and I plan to document on how to create your custom system offerings. I also plan to add on more features than whats currently available - one of them being nginx - and more to come as need arises. The end goal is to have an automated solution using kickstart scripts that will be easy to upgrade and built on any platform.
>>
>> I could probably reverse engineer the existing System Offerings - but anything that could save my time in this effort - would be truly appreciated.
>>
>> With this in mind - I'm looking for any existing documentation that would describe the steps in achieving this goal.
>>
>> If you would like to join me in this effort - please let me know.
>>
>> Thanks
>> ilya
>>
>
>
>
RE: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net>.
Hi Wido,
If no-one is taking ticket 451, I'll take this on. I cant assign this to myself - so if someone with higher privileges can do that - that would be great.
I will create CentOS 6.3 based distro with latest patches. I'm a bit uncertain on the reason behind using a 32bit system vs 64bit as network offering. If it's strictly from the memory utilization perspective - as 32 bit tends to be a little lean on memory - I understand.
What was the reason for going with 32 bit OS on Debian Squeezy and not 64?
-----Original Message-----
From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:wido@widodh.nl]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 3:20 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
Hi,
I created two Jira tickets about this about a month ago:
* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-450
* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-451
They might be worth looking at!
Wido
On 12/12/2012 05:14 AM, Musayev, Ilya wrote:
> I'd like to resurrect this thread - as the other thread got carried away into Vyatta conversation.
>
> My reasoning behind this move - is due to e1000 bug that affects Debian Wheezy, vSphere 5.0 (and possibly newer 5.1) and the router VM in Advanced Network Zone. While I could spent lots of time troubleshooting this issue - my environment is mostly RHEL/CentOS based and therefore - it would not hurt to have multiple flavors.
>
> I'm also a lot more comfortable with RHEL based distros - but that just my preference.
>
> In addition, this would be a good learning experience and I plan to document on how to create your custom system offerings. I also plan to add on more features than whats currently available - one of them being nginx - and more to come as need arises. The end goal is to have an automated solution using kickstart scripts that will be easy to upgrade and built on any platform.
>
> I could probably reverse engineer the existing System Offerings - but anything that could save my time in this effort - would be truly appreciated.
>
> With this in mind - I'm looking for any existing documentation that would describe the steps in achieving this goal.
>
> If you would like to join me in this effort - please let me know.
>
> Thanks
> ilya
>
Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
Hi,
I created two Jira tickets about this about a month ago:
* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-450
* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-451
They might be worth looking at!
Wido
On 12/12/2012 05:14 AM, Musayev, Ilya wrote:
> I'd like to resurrect this thread - as the other thread got carried away into Vyatta conversation.
>
> My reasoning behind this move - is due to e1000 bug that affects Debian Wheezy, vSphere 5.0 (and possibly newer 5.1) and the router VM in Advanced Network Zone. While I could spent lots of time troubleshooting this issue - my environment is mostly RHEL/CentOS based and therefore - it would not hurt to have multiple flavors.
>
> I'm also a lot more comfortable with RHEL based distros - but that just my preference.
>
> In addition, this would be a good learning experience and I plan to document on how to create your custom system offerings. I also plan to add on more features than whats currently available - one of them being nginx - and more to come as need arises. The end goal is to have an automated solution using kickstart scripts that will be easy to upgrade and built on any platform.
>
> I could probably reverse engineer the existing System Offerings - but anything that could save my time in this effort - would be truly appreciated.
>
> With this in mind - I'm looking for any existing documentation that would describe the steps in achieving this goal.
>
> If you would like to join me in this effort - please let me know.
>
> Thanks
> ilya
>
Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net>.
Thank you Mice.
I've seen this before. This doc is more to modify/customize existing template and not how to create one from scratch.
Regards
ilya
Mice Xia <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://docs.cloudstack.org/Knowledge_Base/Customizing_system_VMs
there is a doc online describing how to customize system vm template.
mice
在 2012年12月12日星期三，Musayev, Ilya <im...@webmd.net> 写道：
> I'd like to resurrect this thread - as the other thread got carried away
into Vyatta conversation.
>
> My reasoning behind this move - is due to e1000 bug that affects Debian
Wheezy, vSphere 5.0 (and possibly newer 5.1) and the router VM in Advanced
Network Zone. While I could spent lots of time troubleshooting this issue -
my environment is mostly RHEL/CentOS based and therefore - it would not
hurt to have multiple flavors.
>
> I'm also a lot more comfortable with RHEL based distros - but that just
my preference.
>
> In addition, this would be a good learning experience and I plan to
document on how to create your custom system offerings. I also plan to add
on more features than whats currently available - one of them being nginx -
and more to come as need arises. The end goal is to have an automated
solution using kickstart scripts that will be easy to upgrade and built on
any platform.
>
> I could probably reverse engineer the existing System Offerings - but
anything that could save my time in this effort - would be truly
appreciated.
>
> With this in mind - I'm looking for any existing documentation that would
describe the steps in achieving this goal.
>
> If you would like to join me in this effort - please let me know.
>
> Thanks
> ilya
>
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Re: CentOS System Offering Thread
Posted by Mice Xia <we...@gmail.com>.
http://docs.cloudstack.org/Knowledge_Base/Customizing_system_VMs
there is a doc online describing how to customize system vm template.
mice
在 2012年12月12日星期三，Musayev, Ilya <im...@webmd.net> 写道：
> I'd like to resurrect this thread - as the other thread got carried away
into Vyatta conversation.
>
> My reasoning behind this move - is due to e1000 bug that affects Debian
Wheezy, vSphere 5.0 (and possibly newer 5.1) and the router VM in Advanced
Network Zone. While I could spent lots of time troubleshooting this issue -
my environment is mostly RHEL/CentOS based and therefore - it would not
hurt to have multiple flavors.
>
> I'm also a lot more comfortable with RHEL based distros - but that just
my preference.
>
> In addition, this would be a good learning experience and I plan to
document on how to create your custom system offerings. I also plan to add
on more features than whats currently available - one of them being nginx -
and more to come as need arises. The end goal is to have an automated
solution using kickstart scripts that will be easy to upgrade and built on
any platform.
>
> I could probably reverse engineer the existing System Offerings - but
anything that could save my time in this effort - would be truly
appreciated.
>
> With this in mind - I'm looking for any existing documentation that would
describe the steps in achieving this goal.
>
> If you would like to join me in this effort - please let me know.
>
> Thanks
> ilya
>
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile