You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Phong Nguyen <pn...@gilt.com> on 2013/02/01 04:20:01 UTC
Re: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack
Hi Chiradeep,
I've checked in initial code that is able to spin up an LXC container from
the Cloudstack UI. I could definitely use some review on this and if I'm
doing anything majorly wrong, it would be good to know sooner ;)
In development, I used your recommendation and ran the
NfsSecondaryStorageResource on my laptop to test and debug code for
downloading templates. Worked great and easier than trying to keep dual KVM
+ LXC in development.
My full test setup right now involves a management server + KVM + LXC. I'm
using the KVM host to run the System VMs. After the SSVM spins up, I log in
and swap out the cloud jars to run my dev code. I'm also using the KVM
router VM for dhcp and dns.
How should we handle the System VMs? Does it make sense to create a System
VM for LXC?
I have updated the wiki page with more details:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LXC+Support+in+Cloudstack
Thanks,
Phong
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <
Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
> Any updates / help?
>
> I'd like to point out that the secondary storage process
> (NfsSecondaryStorageResource) can run outside a system vm as well (bare
> metal).
> It has a "inSystemVm" flag that turns on/off various things.
>
> Alternatively you can run LocalSecondaryStorageResource instead -- this
> executes inside the management server and expects the NFS server to be
> mounted on the management server.
> But not all features are supported (esp. zone-to-zone copy).
>
> With the storage refactor, you may not even need either resource as long
> as all you need is to copy images to primary storage from some store
> (e.g., a web server).
>
>
> On 1/8/13 4:42 PM, "Alex Karasulu" <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Phong Nguyen <pn...@gilt.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you all for your responses.
> >>
> >> Chip: I have started a design document and will keep it updated with our
> >> discussions.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LXC+Support+in+Clo
> >>udstack
> >>
> >> Chiradeep: I think option #2 as you have suggested is a good idea. I'll
> >>be
> >> looking at this part soon in my dev setup, thanks for the advice.
> >>
> >> Alex: Would be great to work with you if you are interested.
> >>
> >>
> >Yes, I'll contact you offline for minor coordination details and every so
> >often we can report back to the mailing list.
> >
> >
> >> In terms of collaborating, since I'm a non-committer, would the best
> >>option
> >> be to develop on github? I'm assuming branch commit privileges is only
> >>for
> >> committers?
> >>
> >
> >Yep but with git it makes little difference.
> >
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> -Phong
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Chiradeep Vittal <
> >> Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 1/7/13 1:17 PM, "Alex Karasulu" <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org
> >
> >> > >wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Alex Karasulu
> >> > >><ak...@apache.org>wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Hi Phong,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Phong Nguyen <pn...@gilt.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>> Hi,
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> We are interested in adding LXC support to Cloudstack.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I've also been interested in Cloudstack support for LXC. I
> >>checked a
> >> > >>>few
> >> > >>> days ago for it and was disappointed when I could not find it but
> >> found
> >> > >>> support for it in OpenStack instead :P. I wanted to inquire about
> >> > >>>adding
> >> > >>> LXC support thinking this might be a good starting point for my
> >> getting
> >> > >>> involved in the code. At this point, I have nothing further to
> >> > >>>contribute
> >> > >>> besides the link you already found, but I thought if others saw
> >>more
> >> > >>>people
> >> > >>> interested then LXC support might be considered.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >> Here's a bit more chatter on this topic but as we see it's not been
> >> > >> implemented. Rip for the picking ...
> >> > >>
> >> > >> http://goo.gl/x60At
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >s/Rip/Ripe/ damn autocorrect on pad.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> I've searched around
> >> > >>>> for container support for Cloudstack and was able to find one
> >> posting
> >> > >>>> related to OpenVZ (over a year ago):
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28030821
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> BTW OpenVZ is great stuff but I've found the fact that you need a
> >> > >>>custom
> >> > >>> Kernel a bit of a problem. LXC is much better in this sense since
> >> it's
> >> > >>> already present in every kernel past 2.6.26 (or 2.6.29?) but
> >>that's
> >> > >>>besides
> >> > >>> the point of this thread. Sorry for digressing.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Is there any current, on-going, or future work planned in this
> >>area?
> >> > >>>Are
> >> > >>>> there any architectural changes since then that would affect the
> >> > >>>> suggestions in this posting? Any other suggestions greatly
> >> > >>>>appreciated.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>> I too am interested in these details.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Thanks,
> >> > >>> Alex
> >> > >>>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I like the concept of more hypervisors being supported!
> >> > Having said that, the most perplexing thing that stumps people on
> >>such a
> >> > quest
> >> > is the need to have a system vm image for the new hypervisor
> >> >
> >> > There's a couple of approaches for this
> >> > 1. Assume a multi-hypervisor zone with enough XS/KVM/VMWare
> >>hypervisors
> >> to
> >> > run
> >> > the standard system vm image
> >> > 2. Make the system vm optional. This requires some code changes (not
> >> major)
> >> > - make the console proxy optional
> >> > - run the secondary storage daemon on baremetal (next to the
> >>management
> >> > server)
> >> > Option #2 will suffice for running vms without complex network
> >>services.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Best Regards,
> >-- Alex
>
>
Re: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack
Posted by Phong Nguyen <pn...@gilt.com>.
Hi Edison,
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:
> SSVM is unnecessary for LXC, AFAICT. The template can be directly
> downloaded to primary storage through LXC host. ****
>
> Here is what will happen in the new storage framework:****
>
> Register template: if there is no nfs secondary storage specified, mgt
> server just put template url into vm_template db.****
>
> Primarystoragedownload: mgt server will send down template url to LXC
> host, agent will download template into primary storage.
>
The new storage framework sounds like a nice optimization.
System vm is one thing(we get rid of it), but how about router VM? Router
> VM is used not only for DNS/DHCP, but also for egress/ingress control, load
> balancer etc. Do you know, inside LXC container, can you set iptables
> rules? If it’s not, then we need a way to workaround router VM.
>
I just tested out a couple simple iptable rules from inside an lxc
container. Seems to work fine for me.
> ****
>
> I am thinking about, always using KVM to start system VM, so that you
> don’t need to build LXC system VM template. I assume, both LXC and KVM can
> co-exist on the same host(they should, but never try it by myself). If it’s
> true, you can reuse KVM system vm templates for LXC.
>
Interesting, this kind of changes the model to supporting multiple
hypervisors at the host level. Let's chat more offline about this on
Tuesday.
Thanks,
-Phong
>
>
****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Phong Nguyen [mailto:pnguyen@gilt.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:20 PM
>
> *To:* cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> *Cc:* Edison Su
> *Subject:* Re: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Chiradeep,****
>
> ** **
>
> I've checked in initial code that is able to spin up an LXC container from
> the Cloudstack UI. I could definitely use some review on this and if I'm
> doing anything majorly wrong, it would be good to know sooner ;)****
>
> ** **
>
> In development, I used your recommendation and ran the
> NfsSecondaryStorageResource on my laptop to test and debug code for
> downloading templates. Worked great and easier than trying to keep dual KVM
> + LXC in development.****
>
> ** **
>
> My full test setup right now involves a management server + KVM + LXC. I'm
> using the KVM host to run the System VMs. After the SSVM spins up, I log in
> and swap out the cloud jars to run my dev code. I'm also using the KVM
> router VM for dhcp and dns.****
>
> ** **
>
> How should we handle the System VMs? Does it make sense to create a System
> VM for LXC?****
>
> ** **
>
> I have updated the wiki page with more details:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LXC+Support+in+Cloudstack
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Phong****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <
> Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:****
>
> Any updates / help?
>
> I'd like to point out that the secondary storage process
> (NfsSecondaryStorageResource) can run outside a system vm as well (bare
> metal).
> It has a "inSystemVm" flag that turns on/off various things.
>
> Alternatively you can run LocalSecondaryStorageResource instead -- this
> executes inside the management server and expects the NFS server to be
> mounted on the management server.
> But not all features are supported (esp. zone-to-zone copy).
>
> With the storage refactor, you may not even need either resource as long
> as all you need is to copy images to primary storage from some store
> (e.g., a web server).****
>
>
>
> On 1/8/13 4:42 PM, "Alex Karasulu" <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Phong Nguyen <pn...@gilt.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you all for your responses.
> >>
> >> Chip: I have started a design document and will keep it updated with our
> >> discussions.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LXC+Support+in+Clo
> >>udstack
> >>
> >> Chiradeep: I think option #2 as you have suggested is a good idea. I'll
> >>be
> >> looking at this part soon in my dev setup, thanks for the advice.
> >>
> >> Alex: Would be great to work with you if you are interested.
> >>
> >>
> >Yes, I'll contact you offline for minor coordination details and every so
> >often we can report back to the mailing list.
> >
> >
> >> In terms of collaborating, since I'm a non-committer, would the best
> >>option
> >> be to develop on github? I'm assuming branch commit privileges is only
> >>for
> >> committers?
> >>
> >
> >Yep but with git it makes little difference.
> >
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> -Phong
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Chiradeep Vittal <
> >> Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 1/7/13 1:17 PM, "Alex Karasulu" <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org
> >
> >> > >wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Alex Karasulu
> >> > >><ak...@apache.org>wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Hi Phong,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Phong Nguyen <pn...@gilt.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>> Hi,
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> We are interested in adding LXC support to Cloudstack.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I've also been interested in Cloudstack support for LXC. I
> >>checked a
> >> > >>>few
> >> > >>> days ago for it and was disappointed when I could not find it but
> >> found
> >> > >>> support for it in OpenStack instead :P. I wanted to inquire about
> >> > >>>adding
> >> > >>> LXC support thinking this might be a good starting point for my
> >> getting
> >> > >>> involved in the code. At this point, I have nothing further to
> >> > >>>contribute
> >> > >>> besides the link you already found, but I thought if others saw
> >>more
> >> > >>>people
> >> > >>> interested then LXC support might be considered.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >> Here's a bit more chatter on this topic but as we see it's not been
> >> > >> implemented. Rip for the picking ...
> >> > >>
> >> > >> http://goo.gl/x60At
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >s/Rip/Ripe/ damn autocorrect on pad.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> I've searched around
> >> > >>>> for container support for Cloudstack and was able to find one
> >> posting
> >> > >>>> related to OpenVZ (over a year ago):
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28030821
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> BTW OpenVZ is great stuff but I've found the fact that you need a
> >> > >>>custom
> >> > >>> Kernel a bit of a problem. LXC is much better in this sense since
> >> it's
> >> > >>> already present in every kernel past 2.6.26 (or 2.6.29?) but
> >>that's
> >> > >>>besides
> >> > >>> the point of this thread. Sorry for digressing.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Is there any current, on-going, or future work planned in this
> >>area?
> >> > >>>Are
> >> > >>>> there any architectural changes since then that would affect the
> >> > >>>> suggestions in this posting? Any other suggestions greatly
> >> > >>>>appreciated.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>> I too am interested in these details.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Thanks,
> >> > >>> Alex
> >> > >>>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I like the concept of more hypervisors being supported!
> >> > Having said that, the most perplexing thing that stumps people on
> >>such a
> >> > quest
> >> > is the need to have a system vm image for the new hypervisor
> >> >
> >> > There's a couple of approaches for this
> >> > 1. Assume a multi-hypervisor zone with enough XS/KVM/VMWare
> >>hypervisors
> >> to
> >> > run
> >> > the standard system vm image
> >> > 2. Make the system vm optional. This requires some code changes (not
> >> major)
> >> > - make the console proxy optional
> >> > - run the secondary storage daemon on baremetal (next to the
> >>management
> >> > server)
> >> > Option #2 will suffice for running vms without complex network
> >>services.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Best Regards,
> >-- Alex****
>
> ** **
>
RE: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack
Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.
SSVM is unnecessary for LXC, AFAICT. The template can be directly downloaded to primary storage through LXC host.
Here is what will happen in the new storage framework:
Register template: if there is no nfs secondary storage specified, mgt server just put template url into vm_template db.
Primarystoragedownload: mgt server will send down template url to LXC host, agent will download template into primary storage.
System vm is one thing(we get rid of it), but how about router VM? Router VM is used not only for DNS/DHCP, but also for egress/ingress control, load balancer etc. Do you know, inside LXC container, can you set iptables rules? If it's not, then we need a way to workaround router VM.
I am thinking about, always using KVM to start system VM, so that you don't need to build LXC system VM template. I assume, both LXC and KVM can co-exist on the same host(they should, but never try it by myself). If it's true, you can reuse KVM system vm templates for LXC.
From: Phong Nguyen [mailto:pnguyen@gilt.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:20 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Edison Su
Subject: Re: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack
Hi Chiradeep,
I've checked in initial code that is able to spin up an LXC container from the Cloudstack UI. I could definitely use some review on this and if I'm doing anything majorly wrong, it would be good to know sooner ;)
In development, I used your recommendation and ran the NfsSecondaryStorageResource on my laptop to test and debug code for downloading templates. Worked great and easier than trying to keep dual KVM + LXC in development.
My full test setup right now involves a management server + KVM + LXC. I'm using the KVM host to run the System VMs. After the SSVM spins up, I log in and swap out the cloud jars to run my dev code. I'm also using the KVM router VM for dhcp and dns.
How should we handle the System VMs? Does it make sense to create a System VM for LXC?
I have updated the wiki page with more details: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LXC+Support+in+Cloudstack
Thanks,
Phong
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>> wrote:
Any updates / help?
I'd like to point out that the secondary storage process
(NfsSecondaryStorageResource) can run outside a system vm as well (bare
metal).
It has a "inSystemVm" flag that turns on/off various things.
Alternatively you can run LocalSecondaryStorageResource instead -- this
executes inside the management server and expects the NFS server to be
mounted on the management server.
But not all features are supported (esp. zone-to-zone copy).
With the storage refactor, you may not even need either resource as long
as all you need is to copy images to primary storage from some store
(e.g., a web server).
On 1/8/13 4:42 PM, "Alex Karasulu" <ak...@apache.org>> wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Phong Nguyen <pn...@gilt.com>> wrote:
>
>> Thank you all for your responses.
>>
>> Chip: I have started a design document and will keep it updated with our
>> discussions.
>>
>>
>>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LXC+Support+in+Clo
>>udstack
>>
>> Chiradeep: I think option #2 as you have suggested is a good idea. I'll
>>be
>> looking at this part soon in my dev setup, thanks for the advice.
>>
>> Alex: Would be great to work with you if you are interested.
>>
>>
>Yes, I'll contact you offline for minor coordination details and every so
>often we can report back to the mailing list.
>
>
>> In terms of collaborating, since I'm a non-committer, would the best
>>option
>> be to develop on github? I'm assuming branch commit privileges is only
>>for
>> committers?
>>
>
>Yep but with git it makes little difference.
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> -Phong
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Chiradeep Vittal <
>> Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com<ma...@citrix.com>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On 1/7/13 1:17 PM, "Alex Karasulu" <ak...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>>
>> > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Alex Karasulu
>> > >><ak...@apache.org>>wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Hi Phong,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Phong Nguyen <pn...@gilt.com>>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Hi,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> We are interested in adding LXC support to Cloudstack.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I've also been interested in Cloudstack support for LXC. I
>>checked a
>> > >>>few
>> > >>> days ago for it and was disappointed when I could not find it but
>> found
>> > >>> support for it in OpenStack instead :P. I wanted to inquire about
>> > >>>adding
>> > >>> LXC support thinking this might be a good starting point for my
>> getting
>> > >>> involved in the code. At this point, I have nothing further to
>> > >>>contribute
>> > >>> besides the link you already found, but I thought if others saw
>>more
>> > >>>people
>> > >>> interested then LXC support might be considered.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >> Here's a bit more chatter on this topic but as we see it's not been
>> > >> implemented. Rip for the picking ...
>> > >>
>> > >> http://goo.gl/x60At
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >s/Rip/Ripe/ damn autocorrect on pad.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> I've searched around
>> > >>>> for container support for Cloudstack and was able to find one
>> posting
>> > >>>> related to OpenVZ (over a year ago):
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28030821
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> BTW OpenVZ is great stuff but I've found the fact that you need a
>> > >>>custom
>> > >>> Kernel a bit of a problem. LXC is much better in this sense since
>> it's
>> > >>> already present in every kernel past 2.6.26 (or 2.6.29?) but
>>that's
>> > >>>besides
>> > >>> the point of this thread. Sorry for digressing.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Is there any current, on-going, or future work planned in this
>>area?
>> > >>>Are
>> > >>>> there any architectural changes since then that would affect the
>> > >>>> suggestions in this posting? Any other suggestions greatly
>> > >>>>appreciated.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>> I too am interested in these details.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks,
>> > >>> Alex
>> > >>>
>> >
>> >
>> > I like the concept of more hypervisors being supported!
>> > Having said that, the most perplexing thing that stumps people on
>>such a
>> > quest
>> > is the need to have a system vm image for the new hypervisor
>> >
>> > There's a couple of approaches for this
>> > 1. Assume a multi-hypervisor zone with enough XS/KVM/VMWare
>>hypervisors
>> to
>> > run
>> > the standard system vm image
>> > 2. Make the system vm optional. This requires some code changes (not
>> major)
>> > - make the console proxy optional
>> > - run the secondary storage daemon on baremetal (next to the
>>management
>> > server)
>> > Option #2 will suffice for running vms without complex network
>>services.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Best Regards,
>-- Alex
Re: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack
Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
Looks like good progress. Although it looks like KVM and LXC share a lot,
I wouldn't modify the kvm plugin, but rather extract out some common bits
into a LibvirtAgentBase or something like that. And then create a new LXC
plugin based off of that.
+Edison, Wido, Marcus, Kelven, Donal for more suggestions
As far as system vms go, I think you've got some good ideas there.
On 1/31/13 7:20 PM, "Phong Nguyen" <pn...@gilt.com> wrote:
>Hi Chiradeep,
>
>I've checked in initial code that is able to spin up an LXC container from
>the Cloudstack UI. I could definitely use some review on this and if I'm
>doing anything majorly wrong, it would be good to know sooner ;)
>
>In development, I used your recommendation and ran the
>NfsSecondaryStorageResource on my laptop to test and debug code for
>downloading templates. Worked great and easier than trying to keep dual
>KVM
>+ LXC in development.
>
>My full test setup right now involves a management server + KVM + LXC. I'm
>using the KVM host to run the System VMs. After the SSVM spins up, I log
>in
>and swap out the cloud jars to run my dev code. I'm also using the KVM
>router VM for dhcp and dns.
>
>How should we handle the System VMs? Does it make sense to create a System
>VM for LXC?
>
>I have updated the wiki page with more details:
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LXC+Support+in+Clou
>dstack
>
>Thanks,
>Phong
>
>
>On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <
>Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Any updates / help?
>>
>> I'd like to point out that the secondary storage process
>> (NfsSecondaryStorageResource) can run outside a system vm as well (bare
>> metal).
>> It has a "inSystemVm" flag that turns on/off various things.
>>
>> Alternatively you can run LocalSecondaryStorageResource instead -- this
>> executes inside the management server and expects the NFS server to be
>> mounted on the management server.
>> But not all features are supported (esp. zone-to-zone copy).
>>
>> With the storage refactor, you may not even need either resource as long
>> as all you need is to copy images to primary storage from some store
>> (e.g., a web server).
>>
>>
>> On 1/8/13 4:42 PM, "Alex Karasulu" <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Phong Nguyen <pn...@gilt.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thank you all for your responses.
>> >>
>> >> Chip: I have started a design document and will keep it updated with
>>our
>> >> discussions.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LXC+Support+in+Clo
>> >>udstack
>> >>
>> >> Chiradeep: I think option #2 as you have suggested is a good idea.
>>I'll
>> >>be
>> >> looking at this part soon in my dev setup, thanks for the advice.
>> >>
>> >> Alex: Would be great to work with you if you are interested.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Yes, I'll contact you offline for minor coordination details and every
>>so
>> >often we can report back to the mailing list.
>> >
>> >
>> >> In terms of collaborating, since I'm a non-committer, would the best
>> >>option
>> >> be to develop on github? I'm assuming branch commit privileges is
>>only
>> >>for
>> >> committers?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yep but with git it makes little difference.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> -Phong
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Chiradeep Vittal <
>> >> Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 1/7/13 1:17 PM, "Alex Karasulu" <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Alex Karasulu
>><akarasulu@apache.org
>> >
>> >> > >wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Alex Karasulu
>> >> > >><ak...@apache.org>wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>> Hi Phong,
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Phong Nguyen
>><pn...@gilt.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>> Hi,
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>> We are interested in adding LXC support to Cloudstack.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> I've also been interested in Cloudstack support for LXC. I
>> >>checked a
>> >> > >>>few
>> >> > >>> days ago for it and was disappointed when I could not find it
>>but
>> >> found
>> >> > >>> support for it in OpenStack instead :P. I wanted to inquire
>>about
>> >> > >>>adding
>> >> > >>> LXC support thinking this might be a good starting point for my
>> >> getting
>> >> > >>> involved in the code. At this point, I have nothing further to
>> >> > >>>contribute
>> >> > >>> besides the link you already found, but I thought if others saw
>> >>more
>> >> > >>>people
>> >> > >>> interested then LXC support might be considered.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >> Here's a bit more chatter on this topic but as we see it's not
>>been
>> >> > >> implemented. Rip for the picking ...
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> http://goo.gl/x60At
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >s/Rip/Ripe/ damn autocorrect on pad.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>> I've searched around
>> >> > >>>> for container support for Cloudstack and was able to find one
>> >> posting
>> >> > >>>> related to OpenVZ (over a year ago):
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28030821
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> BTW OpenVZ is great stuff but I've found the fact that you
>>need a
>> >> > >>>custom
>> >> > >>> Kernel a bit of a problem. LXC is much better in this sense
>>since
>> >> it's
>> >> > >>> already present in every kernel past 2.6.26 (or 2.6.29?) but
>> >>that's
>> >> > >>>besides
>> >> > >>> the point of this thread. Sorry for digressing.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> Is there any current, on-going, or future work planned in this
>> >>area?
>> >> > >>>Are
>> >> > >>>> there any architectural changes since then that would affect
>>the
>> >> > >>>> suggestions in this posting? Any other suggestions greatly
>> >> > >>>>appreciated.
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>> I too am interested in these details.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> Thanks,
>> >> > >>> Alex
>> >> > >>>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I like the concept of more hypervisors being supported!
>> >> > Having said that, the most perplexing thing that stumps people on
>> >>such a
>> >> > quest
>> >> > is the need to have a system vm image for the new hypervisor
>> >> >
>> >> > There's a couple of approaches for this
>> >> > 1. Assume a multi-hypervisor zone with enough XS/KVM/VMWare
>> >>hypervisors
>> >> to
>> >> > run
>> >> > the standard system vm image
>> >> > 2. Make the system vm optional. This requires some code changes
>>(not
>> >> major)
>> >> > - make the console proxy optional
>> >> > - run the secondary storage daemon on baremetal (next to the
>> >>management
>> >> > server)
>> >> > Option #2 will suffice for running vms without complex network
>> >>services.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Best Regards,
>> >-- Alex
>>
>>