You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Darren Shepherd <da...@gmail.com> on 2013/09/26 01:38:13 UTC
ubuntu LTS for system vm? and 64bit?
Is there any technical reason why we couldn't use ubuntu LTS (12.04
and soon to be 14.04) for the system VM. Additionally is there any
technical reason we couldn't switch to 64bit. I don't necesarily want
to get into "fight for you favorite distro" discussion, just curious.
Darren
Re: ubuntu LTS for system vm? and 64bit?
Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
That enabled running without a system vm. But you'd still need a VR if you
wanted network services.
On 9/26/13 12:47 AM, "Sebastien Goasguen" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 09/26/2013 01:38 AM, Darren Shepherd wrote:
>>> Is there any technical reason why we couldn't use ubuntu LTS (12.04
>>> and soon to be 14.04) for the system VM. Additionally is there any
>>> technical reason we couldn't switch to 64bit. I don't necesarily want
>>> to get into "fight for you favorite distro" discussion, just curious.
>>>
>>
>> This still underlines the problem with the SystemVM, it isn't flexible
>>enough.
>>
>> I'm not saying we should change overnight, but the SystemVM should be
>>abstracted a lot more so people can throw in their own SystemVM more
>>easily.
>>
>> I created a issue about this last year:
>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-451
>>
>> I'd like to see this abstracted more so you can drop in any Linux or
>>BSD distro you like as long as it talks the API and does what it's asked
>>to do.
>>
>> For Debian based we should be able to create some .deb packages which
>>you can simple install and for Redhat some .rpms.
>>
>> The SystemVMs aren't rocket-science, as a matter of fact, I think the
>>are a big mess internally when you see all the scripts.
>>
>> Wido
>
>Didn't Chiradeep work on quick cloud to solve some of those issues:
>
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/QuickCloud
>
>
>
>>
>>> Darren
>>>
>
Re: ubuntu LTS for system vm? and 64bit?
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>
>
> On 09/26/2013 01:38 AM, Darren Shepherd wrote:
>> Is there any technical reason why we couldn't use ubuntu LTS (12.04
>> and soon to be 14.04) for the system VM. Additionally is there any
>> technical reason we couldn't switch to 64bit. I don't necesarily want
>> to get into "fight for you favorite distro" discussion, just curious.
>>
>
> This still underlines the problem with the SystemVM, it isn't flexible enough.
>
> I'm not saying we should change overnight, but the SystemVM should be abstracted a lot more so people can throw in their own SystemVM more easily.
>
> I created a issue about this last year: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-451
>
> I'd like to see this abstracted more so you can drop in any Linux or BSD distro you like as long as it talks the API and does what it's asked to do.
>
> For Debian based we should be able to create some .deb packages which you can simple install and for Redhat some .rpms.
>
> The SystemVMs aren't rocket-science, as a matter of fact, I think the are a big mess internally when you see all the scripts.
>
> Wido
Didn't Chiradeep work on quick cloud to solve some of those issues:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/QuickCloud
>
>> Darren
>>
Re: ubuntu LTS for system vm? and 64bit?
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
On 09/26/2013 01:38 AM, Darren Shepherd wrote:
> Is there any technical reason why we couldn't use ubuntu LTS (12.04
> and soon to be 14.04) for the system VM. Additionally is there any
> technical reason we couldn't switch to 64bit. I don't necesarily want
> to get into "fight for you favorite distro" discussion, just curious.
>
This still underlines the problem with the SystemVM, it isn't flexible
enough.
I'm not saying we should change overnight, but the SystemVM should be
abstracted a lot more so people can throw in their own SystemVM more easily.
I created a issue about this last year:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-451
I'd like to see this abstracted more so you can drop in any Linux or BSD
distro you like as long as it talks the API and does what it's asked to do.
For Debian based we should be able to create some .deb packages which
you can simple install and for Redhat some .rpms.
The SystemVMs aren't rocket-science, as a matter of fact, I think the
are a big mess internally when you see all the scripts.
Wido
> Darren
>
Re: ubuntu LTS for system vm? and 64bit?
Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
Yes. 4.2 has Wheezy with the 3.2 kernel. Theoretically with RPS/RFS we
could use multiple cores effectively, but it may be harder in practice.
On 9/25/13 10:53 PM, "Darren Shepherd" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yeah, for sure 32bit PV is faster. Do we require a specific minimum
>kernel version? I though I heard something about upgrading the template
>for multicore networking or something like that.
>
>Darren
>
>> On Sep 25, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
>><Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>> 32-bit theoretically performs better on Xen.
>> Debian is just more stable than Ubuntu, hence the preference.
>>
>>> On 9/25/13 4:38 PM, "Darren Shepherd" <da...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there any technical reason why we couldn't use ubuntu LTS (12.04
>>> and soon to be 14.04) for the system VM. Additionally is there any
>>> technical reason we couldn't switch to 64bit. I don't necesarily want
>>> to get into "fight for you favorite distro" discussion, just curious.
>>>
>>> Darren
>>
Re: ubuntu LTS for system vm? and 64bit?
Posted by Darren Shepherd <da...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, for sure 32bit PV is faster. Do we require a specific minimum kernel version? I though I heard something about upgrading the template for multicore networking or something like that.
Darren
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> 32-bit theoretically performs better on Xen.
> Debian is just more stable than Ubuntu, hence the preference.
>
>> On 9/25/13 4:38 PM, "Darren Shepherd" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Is there any technical reason why we couldn't use ubuntu LTS (12.04
>> and soon to be 14.04) for the system VM. Additionally is there any
>> technical reason we couldn't switch to 64bit. I don't necesarily want
>> to get into "fight for you favorite distro" discussion, just curious.
>>
>> Darren
>
Re: ubuntu LTS for system vm? and 64bit?
Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
32-bit theoretically performs better on Xen.
Debian is just more stable than Ubuntu, hence the preference.
On 9/25/13 4:38 PM, "Darren Shepherd" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Is there any technical reason why we couldn't use ubuntu LTS (12.04
>and soon to be 14.04) for the system VM. Additionally is there any
>technical reason we couldn't switch to 64bit. I don't necesarily want
>to get into "fight for you favorite distro" discussion, just curious.
>
>Darren