You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> on 2014/02/01 22:03:42 UTC

Re: Devcloud 2 - veewee/Vagrant projects

On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:25 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I finally got the packer built devcloud box to boot with vagrant, but
> running 'xe vm-list' in it results in:
> 
> Error: Connection refused (calling connect )
> 
> I'm going to do some more investigation, but could take a while as I
> get to learn xen.
> 
> To make things easy while working on this I've created a github project here [2]
> 

I cloned it, the packer builds works and the vagrant export as well.
I was able to vagrant up/ssh.

I noticed couple things.

1-the Xen setup. Check Rohit's blog http://bhaisaab.org he has a section on DIY Devcloud, where he shows how to setup Xen, namely xapi toolstack and creating a echo plugin.I think that's what you are missing, you can probably add this to your posinstall script

2-We switched master to java 7, so you should switch to openjdk-7

3- you might be missing a mysql-python-connector package and you should setup the mysql password as null (for dev).

This is looking quite nice :)

> I've added the problem above as an issue on github.
> 
> ---
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/XenServer/VirtualBox#Installing_XCP
> [2] https://github.com/snowch/devcloud
> 
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Rohit Yadav <ro...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:57 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I have started thinking about some options:
>>>> 
>>>> 1)  use packer to convert the devcloud2 veewee definition as a starting point
>>>> 2) create devcloud3 from scratch
>>>> 3) start with an existing packer definition (e.g. [1])
>>>> 
>>>> Do you have a view on which option may be most suitable?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> My view would be to start from scratch but of course looking at what has been done.
>>> 
>>> In an ideal world, I would love to see a packer/vagrant file that would do:
>>> 
>>> -Ubuntu and CentOS
>>> -Xen and KVM
>>> 
>>> That way we can decide on what to build. Of course there might be issues due to the PV/HVM support in vbox and the OS chosen.
>>> I don't recall what the issue was that made Rohit use Debian (but see http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/), but ideally it would be good to use stock ubuntu 12.04 or 13.04
>> 
>> DevCloud is just an appliance that facilitates a virtual host
>> (hypervisor) for development with CloudStack. So, I chose Debian
>> because well it's the best in terms of packages, stability, security
>> and is usually rock solid. Ubuntu at the time had a networking issue
>> that did not let me use xenbr0 for use over host-only network, I did
>> not invest much time on it but rather switched to Debian.
>> 
>> I suggest we stick to Debian as it would be least painful for anyone
>> IMO and the problem we're trying to solve is to enable developers have
>> a robust (possibly multi-vm) hypervisor host in box (vm) over a
>> desktop virtualization platform (virtualbox, kvm etc.)
>> 
>> (IMHO -- I wonder if you've tried latest rock-solid Fedora 20, Ubuntu
>> should have been least recommended distro by now don't use it please).
>> 
>>> I list 13.04 because there seems to be an issue with libvirt in 12.04 in the case that you want ceph (http://ceph.com/docs/master/rbd/rbd-cloudstack/). Of course ceph on a single node does not make sense, but for a devcloud3 setup we could imagine setting up ceph in it and use it as primary storage.
>> 
>> Why not build libvirt version we want? In case we want to stay updated
>> I can help you with Fedora 20 based base or Arch based base for
>> devcloud. I've been using Fedora for some months now and I guess if
>> someone want latest and greatest but want to avoid a lot of sysadmin
>> work as with Arch Linux just go with Fedora. Linux users (new and old)
>> have more or less been inclined to Debian because yum-based distros
>> were in really bad shape few years ago and that's when like others I
>> shifted to using Ubuntu. But it's not the case anymore and Ubuntu has
>> tons of problems now and rpm-based distros deserver one shot.
>> 
>>> 
>>> I mention KVM because if one uses VMware workstation than KVM would be an option.
>>> 
>>> What I am doing these days is taking a veewee bare definition and using veewee-to-packer to get started with packer. I install chef/salt/puppet agents in the image so that I can use the 3 of them if I want to.
>>> 
>>>> If we go with option 2 or 3, do you think debian 7.0 should be used as
>>>> a starting point, or another version such as 7.2 or 7.3?  Or even
>>>> another distro?
>> 
>> Feel free to choose whatever distro gives us all the tools and whatnot
>> to solve our problem. Distros and tools are not the problem having a
>> host in a box for CloudStack development is the problem.
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Are these goals still valid for devcloud3?
>>>> 
>>>> - Two network interfaces, host-only adapter so that the VM is
>>>> reachable from host os and a NAT so VMs can access Internet.
>> 
>> This I guess will be most appreciated and useful for developers,
>> probably first time users and for demo. Last time for some reason, I
>> was unable to have Internet reach VMs inside DevCloud.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes
>>> 
>>>> - Can be used both as an all in one box solution like the original
>>>> DevCloud but the mgmt server and other services can run elsewhere (on
>>>> host os).
>> 
>> This already works with last DevCloud.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes
>>> 
>>>> - Reduce resource requirements, so one could run it in 1G limit.
>> 
>> +1 though I think size is not a major issue and reduce image size is a
>> good to have thing.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Would be great, but remember that systemvm and ttylinux will run within it, so those 4 alone may use 1G
>>> 
>>>> - Allow multiple DevCloud VMs hosts.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>>> 
>>> That would be great. Having some skeleton for multiple devcloud hosts in a vagrant file so we can deploy "full" clouds.
>>> 
>>>> - x86 dom0 and xen-i386 so it runs on all host os.
>>>> - Reduce exported appliance (ova) file size.
>>>> - It should be seamless, it should work out of the box.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> Chris, appreciate you taking time working on this.
>> 
>> Regards.
>> 
>>> 
>>> yes
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Are there any new requirements in addition to the ones discussed in
>>>> this email chain, e.g.
>>>> 
>>>> - vagrant support (in addition to the ova/ovf image)
>>>> - packer and vagrant build environment
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> In simstack https://github.com/runseb/simstack I am trying to provide chef/salt/puppet recipes for the install. So in devcloud3, I would lay things out so that we can also do those 3 cfg mgt system in the future. Note that simstack is not devcloud as I am trying to run the simulator and have to compile from source because there is no simulator package.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Many thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Chris
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [1] https://github.com/opscode/bento/tree/master/packer
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for stepping in. That is much needed, in fact I think we should
>>>>>> use something like packer alongwith vagrant/veewee for both devcloud
>>>>>> and systemvmtemplate. Veewee can build vms, packer can export them to
>>>>>> various platforms/formats and a developer could use vagrant for local
>>>>>> devcloud/host automation.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I looked into it the other day and I agree we need to revamp this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> veewee development and maintenance is going to stop. So we need to prep a packer version
>>>>> 
>>>>> So yes we should create a packer definition for devcloud3 :) and be able to post-process it to vagrant.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:30 AM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I would like to build the devcloud2 image [1] from scratch using
>>>>>>> veewee (or packer) and turn it into a vagrant box.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There seems to be several versions of Vagrant files and veewee
>>>>>>> definitions in the code base, making it difficult to know which one to
>>>>>>> start from, or whether they are still valid.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [1] http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
>>>> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69

Re: Devcloud 2 - veewee/Vagrant projects

Posted by chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>.

I've done some more work on the networking - it would be good if this
could be tested.

I'll leave the issue open until I get some feedback that it looks ok.

Please feel free to add other issues on github if you find other bugs.

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Rajani Karuturi
<Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
> oopss.. sorry.. didn't look at the issues list on github :)
>
> I will work on the mount issue.
>
> Thanks,
> ~Rajani
>
>
>
> On 05-Feb-2014, at 3:16 pm, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Rajani,
>
> Many thanks for the feedback.
>
> I still have to figure out the network setup - I have created an issue
> on github to track this.
>
> There is also an open issue for the mount problem.
>
> https://github.com/snowch/devcloud/issues?state=open
>
> Please feel free to raise any other defects that you encounter.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Rajani Karuturi
> <Ra...@citrix.com>> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I tried this today on my machine(macbook 7,1)
> It took nearly 1 hr 45 min for packer build+downloads. Once that is done, when i did a vagrant up, saw the following mount error
> [default] -- /vagrant
> Failed to mount folders in Linux guest. This is usually beacuse
> the "vboxsf" file system is not available. Please verify that
> the guest additions are properly installed in the guest and
> can work properly. The command attempted was:
>
> mount -t vboxsf -o uid=`id -u vagrant`,gid=`getent group vagrant | cut -d: -f3` /vagrant /vagrant
> mount -t vboxsf -o uid=`id -u vagrant`,gid=`id -g vagrant` /vagrant /vagrant
>
> Also, ssh root@192.168.56.10<ma...@192.168.56.10> wasn't working after it is up. I am however able to access it through vagrant ssh. Did the ip change?
>
> Thanks,
> ~Rajani
>
>
>
> On 05-Feb-2014, at 4:15 am, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> The xapi issue is fixed now.
>
> Next on the list:
>
> - The mysql root passwordless access is broken.
> - Add additional network card.
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:16 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback Sebastien, it's much appreciated.
>
> I'll investigate in more detail over the next few days...
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:25 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I finally got the packer built devcloud box to boot with vagrant, but
> running 'xe vm-list' in it results in:
>
> Error: Connection refused (calling connect )
>
> I'm going to do some more investigation, but could take a while as I
> get to learn xen.
>
> To make things easy while working on this I've created a github project here [2]
>
>
> I cloned it, the packer builds works and the vagrant export as well.
> I was able to vagrant up/ssh.
>
> I noticed couple things.
>
> 1-the Xen setup. Check Rohit's blog http://bhaisaab.org he has a section on DIY Devcloud, where he shows how to setup Xen, namely xapi toolstack and creating a echo plugin.I think that's what you are missing, you can probably add this to your posinstall script
>
> 2-We switched master to java 7, so you should switch to openjdk-7
>
> 3- you might be missing a mysql-python-connector package and you should setup the mysql password as null (for dev).
>
>
> One more. It looks like there is only one interface (NAT), probably need to play with the pressed.cfg to add a host only interface:
> https://github.com/snowch/devcloud/blob/master/http/preseed.cfg
>
> This is looking quite nice :)
>
> I've added the problem above as an issue on github.
>
> ---
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/XenServer/VirtualBox#Installing_XCP
> [2] https://github.com/snowch/devcloud
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Rohit Yadav <ro...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:57 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have started thinking about some options:
>
> 1)  use packer to convert the devcloud2 veewee definition as a starting point
> 2) create devcloud3 from scratch
> 3) start with an existing packer definition (e.g. [1])
>
> Do you have a view on which option may be most suitable?
>
>
> My view would be to start from scratch but of course looking at what has been done.
>
> In an ideal world, I would love to see a packer/vagrant file that would do:
>
> -Ubuntu and CentOS
> -Xen and KVM
>
> That way we can decide on what to build. Of course there might be issues due to the PV/HVM support in vbox and the OS chosen.
> I don't recall what the issue was that made Rohit use Debian (but see http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/), but ideally it would be good to use stock ubuntu 12.04 or 13.04
>
> DevCloud is just an appliance that facilitates a virtual host
> (hypervisor) for development with CloudStack. So, I chose Debian
> because well it's the best in terms of packages, stability, security
> and is usually rock solid. Ubuntu at the time had a networking issue
> that did not let me use xenbr0 for use over host-only network, I did
> not invest much time on it but rather switched to Debian.
>
> I suggest we stick to Debian as it would be least painful for anyone
> IMO and the problem we're trying to solve is to enable developers have
> a robust (possibly multi-vm) hypervisor host in box (vm) over a
> desktop virtualization platform (virtualbox, kvm etc.)
>
> (IMHO -- I wonder if you've tried latest rock-solid Fedora 20, Ubuntu
> should have been least recommended distro by now don't use it please).
>
> I list 13.04 because there seems to be an issue with libvirt in 12.04 in the case that you want ceph (http://ceph.com/docs/master/rbd/rbd-cloudstack/). Of course ceph on a single node does not make sense, but for a devcloud3 setup we could imagine setting up ceph in it and use it as primary storage.
>
> Why not build libvirt version we want? In case we want to stay updated
> I can help you with Fedora 20 based base or Arch based base for
> devcloud. I've been using Fedora for some months now and I guess if
> someone want latest and greatest but want to avoid a lot of sysadmin
> work as with Arch Linux just go with Fedora. Linux users (new and old)
> have more or less been inclined to Debian because yum-based distros
> were in really bad shape few years ago and that's when like others I
> shifted to using Ubuntu. But it's not the case anymore and Ubuntu has
> tons of problems now and rpm-based distros deserver one shot.
>
>
> I mention KVM because if one uses VMware workstation than KVM would be an option.
>
> What I am doing these days is taking a veewee bare definition and using veewee-to-packer to get started with packer. I install chef/salt/puppet agents in the image so that I can use the 3 of them if I want to.
>
> If we go with option 2 or 3, do you think debian 7.0 should be used as
> a starting point, or another version such as 7.2 or 7.3?  Or even
> another distro?
>
> Feel free to choose whatever distro gives us all the tools and whatnot
> to solve our problem. Distros and tools are not the problem having a
> host in a box for CloudStack development is the problem.
>
>
> Are these goals still valid for devcloud3?
>
> - Two network interfaces, host-only adapter so that the VM is
> reachable from host os and a NAT so VMs can access Internet.
>
> This I guess will be most appreciated and useful for developers,
> probably first time users and for demo. Last time for some reason, I
> was unable to have Internet reach VMs inside DevCloud.
>
>
> Yes
>
> - Can be used both as an all in one box solution like the original
> DevCloud but the mgmt server and other services can run elsewhere (on
> host os).
>
> This already works with last DevCloud.
>
>
> Yes
>
> - Reduce resource requirements, so one could run it in 1G limit.
>
> +1 though I think size is not a major issue and reduce image size is a
> good to have thing.
>
>
> Would be great, but remember that systemvm and ttylinux will run within it, so those 4 alone may use 1G
>
> - Allow multiple DevCloud VMs hosts.
>
> +1
>
>
> That would be great. Having some skeleton for multiple devcloud hosts in a vagrant file so we can deploy "full" clouds.
>
> - x86 dom0 and xen-i386 so it runs on all host os.
> - Reduce exported appliance (ova) file size.
> - It should be seamless, it should work out of the box.
>
> +1
>
> Chris, appreciate you taking time working on this.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> yes
>
>
> Are there any new requirements in addition to the ones discussed in
> this email chain, e.g.
>
> - vagrant support (in addition to the ova/ovf image)
> - packer and vagrant build environment
>
>
> In simstack https://github.com/runseb/simstack I am trying to provide chef/salt/puppet recipes for the install. So in devcloud3, I would lay things out so that we can also do those 3 cfg mgt system in the future. Note that simstack is not devcloud as I am trying to run the simulator and have to compile from source because there is no simulator package.
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/opscode/bento/tree/master/packer
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for stepping in. That is much needed, in fact I think we should
> use something like packer alongwith vagrant/veewee for both devcloud
> and systemvmtemplate. Veewee can build vms, packer can export them to
> various platforms/formats and a developer could use vagrant for local
> devcloud/host automation.
>
>
> I looked into it the other day and I agree we need to revamp this.
>
> veewee development and maintenance is going to stop. So we need to prep a packer version
>
> So yes we should create a packer definition for devcloud3 :) and be able to post-process it to vagrant.
>
>
>
> Regards.
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:30 AM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to build the devcloud2 image [1] from scratch using
> veewee (or packer) and turn it into a vagrant box.
>
> There seems to be several versions of Vagrant files and veewee
> definitions in the code base, making it difficult to know which one to
> start from, or whether they are still valid.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> [1] http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/
>
>
>
>
> --
> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>
>
>
>
> --
> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>
>
>
> --
> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>
>
>
>
> --
> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>



-- 
Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
http://lnkd.in/cw5k69

Re: Devcloud 2 - veewee/Vagrant projects

Posted by Rajani Karuturi <Ra...@citrix.com>.

oopss.. sorry.. didn’t look at the issues list on github :)

I will work on the mount issue.

Thanks,
~Rajani

On 05-Feb-2014, at 3:16 pm, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Rajani,

Many thanks for the feedback.

I still have to figure out the network setup - I have created an issue
on github to track this.

There is also an open issue for the mount problem.

https://github.com/snowch/devcloud/issues?state=open

Please feel free to raise any other defects that you encounter.

Many thanks,

Chris

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Rajani Karuturi
<Ra...@citrix.com>> wrote:
Hi Chris,

I tried this today on my machine(macbook 7,1)
It took nearly 1 hr 45 min for packer build+downloads. Once that is done, when i did a vagrant up, saw the following mount error
[default] -- /vagrant
Failed to mount folders in Linux guest. This is usually beacuse
the "vboxsf" file system is not available. Please verify that
the guest additions are properly installed in the guest and
can work properly. The command attempted was:

mount -t vboxsf -o uid=`id -u vagrant`,gid=`getent group vagrant | cut -d: -f3` /vagrant /vagrant
mount -t vboxsf -o uid=`id -u vagrant`,gid=`id -g vagrant` /vagrant /vagrant

Also, ssh root@192.168.56.10<ma...@192.168.56.10> wasn't working after it is up. I am however able to access it through vagrant ssh. Did the ip change?

Thanks,
~Rajani

On 05-Feb-2014, at 4:15 am, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>> wrote:

The xapi issue is fixed now.

Next on the list:

- The mysql root passwordless access is broken.
- Add additional network card.

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:16 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks for the feedback Sebastien, it's much appreciated.

I'll investigate in more detail over the next few days...

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:25 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I finally got the packer built devcloud box to boot with vagrant, but
running 'xe vm-list' in it results in:

Error: Connection refused (calling connect )

I'm going to do some more investigation, but could take a while as I
get to learn xen.

To make things easy while working on this I've created a github project here [2]

I cloned it, the packer builds works and the vagrant export as well.
I was able to vagrant up/ssh.

I noticed couple things.

1-the Xen setup. Check Rohit's blog http://bhaisaab.org he has a section on DIY Devcloud, where he shows how to setup Xen, namely xapi toolstack and creating a echo plugin.I think that's what you are missing, you can probably add this to your posinstall script

2-We switched master to java 7, so you should switch to openjdk-7

3- you might be missing a mysql-python-connector package and you should setup the mysql password as null (for dev).

One more. It looks like there is only one interface (NAT), probably need to play with the pressed.cfg to add a host only interface:
https://github.com/snowch/devcloud/blob/master/http/preseed.cfg

This is looking quite nice :)

I've added the problem above as an issue on github.

---
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/XenServer/VirtualBox#Installing_XCP
[2] https://github.com/snowch/devcloud

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Rohit Yadav <ro...@citrix.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:57 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have started thinking about some options:

1) use packer to convert the devcloud2 veewee definition as a starting point
2) create devcloud3 from scratch
3) start with an existing packer definition (e.g. [1])

Do you have a view on which option may be most suitable?

My view would be to start from scratch but of course looking at what has been done.

In an ideal world, I would love to see a packer/vagrant file that would do:

-Ubuntu and CentOS
-Xen and KVM

That way we can decide on what to build. Of course there might be issues due to the PV/HVM support in vbox and the OS chosen.
I don't recall what the issue was that made Rohit use Debian (but see http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/), but ideally it would be good to use stock ubuntu 12.04 or 13.04

DevCloud is just an appliance that facilitates a virtual host
(hypervisor) for development with CloudStack. So, I chose Debian
because well it's the best in terms of packages, stability, security
and is usually rock solid. Ubuntu at the time had a networking issue
that did not let me use xenbr0 for use over host-only network, I did
not invest much time on it but rather switched to Debian.

I suggest we stick to Debian as it would be least painful for anyone
IMO and the problem we're trying to solve is to enable developers have
a robust (possibly multi-vm) hypervisor host in box (vm) over a
desktop virtualization platform (virtualbox, kvm etc.)

(IMHO -- I wonder if you've tried latest rock-solid Fedora 20, Ubuntu
should have been least recommended distro by now don't use it please).

I list 13.04 because there seems to be an issue with libvirt in 12.04 in the case that you want ceph (http://ceph.com/docs/master/rbd/rbd-cloudstack/). Of course ceph on a single node does not make sense, but for a devcloud3 setup we could imagine setting up ceph in it and use it as primary storage.

Why not build libvirt version we want? In case we want to stay updated
I can help you with Fedora 20 based base or Arch based base for
devcloud. I've been using Fedora for some months now and I guess if
someone want latest and greatest but want to avoid a lot of sysadmin
work as with Arch Linux just go with Fedora. Linux users (new and old)
have more or less been inclined to Debian because yum-based distros
were in really bad shape few years ago and that's when like others I
shifted to using Ubuntu. But it's not the case anymore and Ubuntu has
tons of problems now and rpm-based distros deserver one shot.

I mention KVM because if one uses VMware workstation than KVM would be an option.

What I am doing these days is taking a veewee bare definition and using veewee-to-packer to get started with packer. I install chef/salt/puppet agents in the image so that I can use the 3 of them if I want to.

If we go with option 2 or 3, do you think debian 7.0 should be used as
a starting point, or another version such as 7.2 or 7.3? Or even
another distro?

Feel free to choose whatever distro gives us all the tools and whatnot
to solve our problem. Distros and tools are not the problem having a
host in a box for CloudStack development is the problem.

Are these goals still valid for devcloud3?

- Two network interfaces, host-only adapter so that the VM is
reachable from host os and a NAT so VMs can access Internet.

This I guess will be most appreciated and useful for developers,
probably first time users and for demo. Last time for some reason, I
was unable to have Internet reach VMs inside DevCloud.

Yes

- Can be used both as an all in one box solution like the original
DevCloud but the mgmt server and other services can run elsewhere (on
host os).

This already works with last DevCloud.

Yes

- Reduce resource requirements, so one could run it in 1G limit.

+1 though I think size is not a major issue and reduce image size is a
good to have thing.

Would be great, but remember that systemvm and ttylinux will run within it, so those 4 alone may use 1G

- Allow multiple DevCloud VMs hosts.

That would be great. Having some skeleton for multiple devcloud hosts in a vagrant file so we can deploy "full" clouds.

- x86 dom0 and xen-i386 so it runs on all host os.
- Reduce exported appliance (ova) file size.
- It should be seamless, it should work out of the box.

Chris, appreciate you taking time working on this.

Regards.

yes

Are there any new requirements in addition to the ones discussed in
this email chain, e.g.

- vagrant support (in addition to the ova/ovf image)
- packer and vagrant build environment

In simstack https://github.com/runseb/simstack I am trying to provide chef/salt/puppet recipes for the install. So in devcloud3, I would lay things out so that we can also do those 3 cfg mgt system in the future. Note that simstack is not devcloud as I am trying to run the simulator and have to compile from source because there is no simulator package.

Many thanks,

Chris

[1] https://github.com/opscode/bento/tree/master/packer

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org> wrote:

Thanks for stepping in. That is much needed, in fact I think we should
use something like packer alongwith vagrant/veewee for both devcloud
and systemvmtemplate. Veewee can build vms, packer can export them to
various platforms/formats and a developer could use vagrant for local
devcloud/host automation.

I looked into it the other day and I agree we need to revamp this.

veewee development and maintenance is going to stop. So we need to prep a packer version

So yes we should create a packer definition for devcloud3 :) and be able to post-process it to vagrant.

Regards.

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:30 AM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
I would like to build the devcloud2 image [1] from scratch using
veewee (or packer) and turn it into a vagrant box.

There seems to be several versions of Vagrant files and veewee
definitions in the code base, making it difficult to know which one to
start from, or whether they are still valid.

Many thanks,

Chris

[1] http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/

--
Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
http://lnkd.in/cw5k69

Re: Devcloud 2 - veewee/Vagrant projects

Posted by chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>.

Hi Rajani,

Many thanks for the feedback.

I still have to figure out the network setup - I have created an issue
on github to track this.

There is also an open issue for the mount problem.

https://github.com/snowch/devcloud/issues?state=open

Please feel free to raise any other defects that you encounter.

Many thanks,

Chris


On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Rajani Karuturi
<Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I tried this today on my machine(macbook 7,1)
> It took nearly 1 hr 45 min for packer build+downloads. Once that is done, when i did a vagrant up, saw the following mount error
> [default] -- /vagrant
> Failed to mount folders in Linux guest. This is usually beacuse
> the "vboxsf" file system is not available. Please verify that
> the guest additions are properly installed in the guest and
> can work properly. The command attempted was:
>
> mount -t vboxsf -o uid=`id -u vagrant`,gid=`getent group vagrant | cut -d: -f3` /vagrant /vagrant
> mount -t vboxsf -o uid=`id -u vagrant`,gid=`id -g vagrant` /vagrant /vagrant
>
> Also, ssh root@192.168.56.10<ma...@192.168.56.10> wasn't working after it is up. I am however able to access it through vagrant ssh. Did the ip change?
>
> Thanks,
> ~Rajani
>
>
>
> On 05-Feb-2014, at 4:15 am, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> The xapi issue is fixed now.
>
> Next on the list:
>
> - The mysql root passwordless access is broken.
> - Add additional network card.
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:16 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback Sebastien, it's much appreciated.
>
> I'll investigate in more detail over the next few days...
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:25 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I finally got the packer built devcloud box to boot with vagrant, but
> running 'xe vm-list' in it results in:
>
> Error: Connection refused (calling connect )
>
> I'm going to do some more investigation, but could take a while as I
> get to learn xen.
>
> To make things easy while working on this I've created a github project here [2]
>
>
> I cloned it, the packer builds works and the vagrant export as well.
> I was able to vagrant up/ssh.
>
> I noticed couple things.
>
> 1-the Xen setup. Check Rohit's blog http://bhaisaab.org he has a section on DIY Devcloud, where he shows how to setup Xen, namely xapi toolstack and creating a echo plugin.I think that's what you are missing, you can probably add this to your posinstall script
>
> 2-We switched master to java 7, so you should switch to openjdk-7
>
> 3- you might be missing a mysql-python-connector package and you should setup the mysql password as null (for dev).
>
>
> One more. It looks like there is only one interface (NAT), probably need to play with the pressed.cfg to add a host only interface:
> https://github.com/snowch/devcloud/blob/master/http/preseed.cfg
>
> This is looking quite nice :)
>
> I've added the problem above as an issue on github.
>
> ---
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/XenServer/VirtualBox#Installing_XCP
> [2] https://github.com/snowch/devcloud
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Rohit Yadav <ro...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:57 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have started thinking about some options:
>
> 1)  use packer to convert the devcloud2 veewee definition as a starting point
> 2) create devcloud3 from scratch
> 3) start with an existing packer definition (e.g. [1])
>
> Do you have a view on which option may be most suitable?
>
>
> My view would be to start from scratch but of course looking at what has been done.
>
> In an ideal world, I would love to see a packer/vagrant file that would do:
>
> -Ubuntu and CentOS
> -Xen and KVM
>
> That way we can decide on what to build. Of course there might be issues due to the PV/HVM support in vbox and the OS chosen.
> I don't recall what the issue was that made Rohit use Debian (but see http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/), but ideally it would be good to use stock ubuntu 12.04 or 13.04
>
> DevCloud is just an appliance that facilitates a virtual host
> (hypervisor) for development with CloudStack. So, I chose Debian
> because well it's the best in terms of packages, stability, security
> and is usually rock solid. Ubuntu at the time had a networking issue
> that did not let me use xenbr0 for use over host-only network, I did
> not invest much time on it but rather switched to Debian.
>
> I suggest we stick to Debian as it would be least painful for anyone
> IMO and the problem we're trying to solve is to enable developers have
> a robust (possibly multi-vm) hypervisor host in box (vm) over a
> desktop virtualization platform (virtualbox, kvm etc.)
>
> (IMHO -- I wonder if you've tried latest rock-solid Fedora 20, Ubuntu
> should have been least recommended distro by now don't use it please).
>
> I list 13.04 because there seems to be an issue with libvirt in 12.04 in the case that you want ceph (http://ceph.com/docs/master/rbd/rbd-cloudstack/). Of course ceph on a single node does not make sense, but for a devcloud3 setup we could imagine setting up ceph in it and use it as primary storage.
>
> Why not build libvirt version we want? In case we want to stay updated
> I can help you with Fedora 20 based base or Arch based base for
> devcloud. I've been using Fedora for some months now and I guess if
> someone want latest and greatest but want to avoid a lot of sysadmin
> work as with Arch Linux just go with Fedora. Linux users (new and old)
> have more or less been inclined to Debian because yum-based distros
> were in really bad shape few years ago and that's when like others I
> shifted to using Ubuntu. But it's not the case anymore and Ubuntu has
> tons of problems now and rpm-based distros deserver one shot.
>
>
> I mention KVM because if one uses VMware workstation than KVM would be an option.
>
> What I am doing these days is taking a veewee bare definition and using veewee-to-packer to get started with packer. I install chef/salt/puppet agents in the image so that I can use the 3 of them if I want to.
>
> If we go with option 2 or 3, do you think debian 7.0 should be used as
> a starting point, or another version such as 7.2 or 7.3?  Or even
> another distro?
>
> Feel free to choose whatever distro gives us all the tools and whatnot
> to solve our problem. Distros and tools are not the problem having a
> host in a box for CloudStack development is the problem.
>
>
> Are these goals still valid for devcloud3?
>
> - Two network interfaces, host-only adapter so that the VM is
> reachable from host os and a NAT so VMs can access Internet.
>
> This I guess will be most appreciated and useful for developers,
> probably first time users and for demo. Last time for some reason, I
> was unable to have Internet reach VMs inside DevCloud.
>
>
> Yes
>
> - Can be used both as an all in one box solution like the original
> DevCloud but the mgmt server and other services can run elsewhere (on
> host os).
>
> This already works with last DevCloud.
>
>
> Yes
>
> - Reduce resource requirements, so one could run it in 1G limit.
>
> +1 though I think size is not a major issue and reduce image size is a
> good to have thing.
>
>
> Would be great, but remember that systemvm and ttylinux will run within it, so those 4 alone may use 1G
>
> - Allow multiple DevCloud VMs hosts.
>
> +1
>
>
> That would be great. Having some skeleton for multiple devcloud hosts in a vagrant file so we can deploy "full" clouds.
>
> - x86 dom0 and xen-i386 so it runs on all host os.
> - Reduce exported appliance (ova) file size.
> - It should be seamless, it should work out of the box.
>
> +1
>
> Chris, appreciate you taking time working on this.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> yes
>
>
> Are there any new requirements in addition to the ones discussed in
> this email chain, e.g.
>
> - vagrant support (in addition to the ova/ovf image)
> - packer and vagrant build environment
>
>
> In simstack https://github.com/runseb/simstack I am trying to provide chef/salt/puppet recipes for the install. So in devcloud3, I would lay things out so that we can also do those 3 cfg mgt system in the future. Note that simstack is not devcloud as I am trying to run the simulator and have to compile from source because there is no simulator package.
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/opscode/bento/tree/master/packer
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for stepping in. That is much needed, in fact I think we should
> use something like packer alongwith vagrant/veewee for both devcloud
> and systemvmtemplate. Veewee can build vms, packer can export them to
> various platforms/formats and a developer could use vagrant for local
> devcloud/host automation.
>
>
> I looked into it the other day and I agree we need to revamp this.
>
> veewee development and maintenance is going to stop. So we need to prep a packer version
>
> So yes we should create a packer definition for devcloud3 :) and be able to post-process it to vagrant.
>
>
>
> Regards.
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:30 AM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to build the devcloud2 image [1] from scratch using
> veewee (or packer) and turn it into a vagrant box.
>
> There seems to be several versions of Vagrant files and veewee
> definitions in the code base, making it difficult to know which one to
> start from, or whether they are still valid.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> [1] http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/
>
>
>
>
> --
> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>
>
>
>
> --
> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>
>
>
> --
> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>



-- 
Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
http://lnkd.in/cw5k69

Re: Devcloud 2 - veewee/Vagrant projects

Posted by Rajani Karuturi <Ra...@citrix.com>.

Hi Chris,

mount -t vboxsf -o uid=`id -u vagrant`,gid=`getent group vagrant | cut -d: -f3` /vagrant /vagrant
mount -t vboxsf -o uid=`id -u vagrant`,gid=`id -g vagrant` /vagrant /vagrant

Also, ssh root@192.168.56.10<ma...@192.168.56.10> wasn’t working after it is up. I am however able to access it through vagrant ssh. Did the ip change?

Thanks,
~Rajani

On 05-Feb-2014, at 4:15 am, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>> wrote:

The xapi issue is fixed now.

Next on the list:

- The mysql root passwordless access is broken.
- Add additional network card.

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:16 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks for the feedback Sebastien, it's much appreciated.

I'll investigate in more detail over the next few days...

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:25 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I finally got the packer built devcloud box to boot with vagrant, but
running 'xe vm-list' in it results in:

Error: Connection refused (calling connect )

I'm going to do some more investigation, but could take a while as I
get to learn xen.

To make things easy while working on this I've created a github project here [2]

I cloned it, the packer builds works and the vagrant export as well.
I was able to vagrant up/ssh.

I noticed couple things.

2-We switched master to java 7, so you should switch to openjdk-7

3- you might be missing a mysql-python-connector package and you should setup the mysql password as null (for dev).

One more. It looks like there is only one interface (NAT), probably need to play with the pressed.cfg to add a host only interface:
https://github.com/snowch/devcloud/blob/master/http/preseed.cfg

This is looking quite nice :)

I've added the problem above as an issue on github.

---
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/XenServer/VirtualBox#Installing_XCP
[2] https://github.com/snowch/devcloud

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Rohit Yadav <ro...@citrix.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:57 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have started thinking about some options:

1) use packer to convert the devcloud2 veewee definition as a starting point
2) create devcloud3 from scratch
3) start with an existing packer definition (e.g. [1])

Do you have a view on which option may be most suitable?

My view would be to start from scratch but of course looking at what has been done.

In an ideal world, I would love to see a packer/vagrant file that would do:

-Ubuntu and CentOS
-Xen and KVM

(IMHO -- I wonder if you've tried latest rock-solid Fedora 20, Ubuntu
should have been least recommended distro by now don't use it please).

I mention KVM because if one uses VMware workstation than KVM would be an option.

If we go with option 2 or 3, do you think debian 7.0 should be used as
a starting point, or another version such as 7.2 or 7.3? Or even
another distro?

Feel free to choose whatever distro gives us all the tools and whatnot
to solve our problem. Distros and tools are not the problem having a
host in a box for CloudStack development is the problem.

Are these goals still valid for devcloud3?

- Two network interfaces, host-only adapter so that the VM is
reachable from host os and a NAT so VMs can access Internet.

This I guess will be most appreciated and useful for developers,
probably first time users and for demo. Last time for some reason, I
was unable to have Internet reach VMs inside DevCloud.

Yes

- Can be used both as an all in one box solution like the original
DevCloud but the mgmt server and other services can run elsewhere (on
host os).

This already works with last DevCloud.

Yes

- Reduce resource requirements, so one could run it in 1G limit.

+1 though I think size is not a major issue and reduce image size is a
good to have thing.

Would be great, but remember that systemvm and ttylinux will run within it, so those 4 alone may use 1G

- Allow multiple DevCloud VMs hosts.

That would be great. Having some skeleton for multiple devcloud hosts in a vagrant file so we can deploy "full" clouds.

- x86 dom0 and xen-i386 so it runs on all host os.
- Reduce exported appliance (ova) file size.
- It should be seamless, it should work out of the box.

Chris, appreciate you taking time working on this.

Regards.

yes

Are there any new requirements in addition to the ones discussed in
this email chain, e.g.

- vagrant support (in addition to the ova/ovf image)
- packer and vagrant build environment

Many thanks,

Chris

[1] https://github.com/opscode/bento/tree/master/packer

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org> wrote:

I looked into it the other day and I agree we need to revamp this.

veewee development and maintenance is going to stop. So we need to prep a packer version

So yes we should create a packer definition for devcloud3 :) and be able to post-process it to vagrant.

Regards.

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:30 AM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
I would like to build the devcloud2 image [1] from scratch using
veewee (or packer) and turn it into a vagrant box.

There seems to be several versions of Vagrant files and veewee
definitions in the code base, making it difficult to know which one to
start from, or whether they are still valid.

Many thanks,

Chris

[1] http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/

--
Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
http://lnkd.in/cw5k69

Re: Devcloud 2 - veewee/Vagrant projects

Posted by chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>.

The xapi issue is fixed now.

Next on the list:

 - The mysql root passwordless access is broken.
 - Add additional network card.


On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:16 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback Sebastien, it's much appreciated.
>
> I'll investigate in more detail over the next few days...
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:25 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I finally got the packer built devcloud box to boot with vagrant, but
>>>> running 'xe vm-list' in it results in:
>>>>
>>>> Error: Connection refused (calling connect )
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to do some more investigation, but could take a while as I
>>>> get to learn xen.
>>>>
>>>> To make things easy while working on this I've created a github project here [2]
>>>>
>>>
>>> I cloned it, the packer builds works and the vagrant export as well.
>>> I was able to vagrant up/ssh.
>>>
>>> I noticed couple things.
>>>
>>> 1-the Xen setup. Check Rohit's blog http://bhaisaab.org he has a section on DIY Devcloud, where he shows how to setup Xen, namely xapi toolstack and creating a echo plugin.I think that's what you are missing, you can probably add this to your posinstall script
>>>
>>> 2-We switched master to java 7, so you should switch to openjdk-7
>>>
>>> 3- you might be missing a mysql-python-connector package and you should setup the mysql password as null (for dev).
>>>
>>
>> One more. It looks like there is only one interface (NAT), probably need to play with the pressed.cfg to add a host only interface:
>> https://github.com/snowch/devcloud/blob/master/http/preseed.cfg
>>
>>> This is looking quite nice :)
>>>
>>>> I've added the problem above as an issue on github.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/XenServer/VirtualBox#Installing_XCP
>>>> [2] https://github.com/snowch/devcloud
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Rohit Yadav <ro...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:57 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have started thinking about some options:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1)  use packer to convert the devcloud2 veewee definition as a starting point
>>>>>>> 2) create devcloud3 from scratch
>>>>>>> 3) start with an existing packer definition (e.g. [1])
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have a view on which option may be most suitable?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My view would be to start from scratch but of course looking at what has been done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In an ideal world, I would love to see a packer/vagrant file that would do:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Ubuntu and CentOS
>>>>>> -Xen and KVM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That way we can decide on what to build. Of course there might be issues due to the PV/HVM support in vbox and the OS chosen.
>>>>>> I don't recall what the issue was that made Rohit use Debian (but see http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/), but ideally it would be good to use stock ubuntu 12.04 or 13.04
>>>>>
>>>>> DevCloud is just an appliance that facilitates a virtual host
>>>>> (hypervisor) for development with CloudStack. So, I chose Debian
>>>>> because well it's the best in terms of packages, stability, security
>>>>> and is usually rock solid. Ubuntu at the time had a networking issue
>>>>> that did not let me use xenbr0 for use over host-only network, I did
>>>>> not invest much time on it but rather switched to Debian.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest we stick to Debian as it would be least painful for anyone
>>>>> IMO and the problem we're trying to solve is to enable developers have
>>>>> a robust (possibly multi-vm) hypervisor host in box (vm) over a
>>>>> desktop virtualization platform (virtualbox, kvm etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>> (IMHO -- I wonder if you've tried latest rock-solid Fedora 20, Ubuntu
>>>>> should have been least recommended distro by now don't use it please).
>>>>>
>>>>>> I list 13.04 because there seems to be an issue with libvirt in 12.04 in the case that you want ceph (http://ceph.com/docs/master/rbd/rbd-cloudstack/). Of course ceph on a single node does not make sense, but for a devcloud3 setup we could imagine setting up ceph in it and use it as primary storage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not build libvirt version we want? In case we want to stay updated
>>>>> I can help you with Fedora 20 based base or Arch based base for
>>>>> devcloud. I've been using Fedora for some months now and I guess if
>>>>> someone want latest and greatest but want to avoid a lot of sysadmin
>>>>> work as with Arch Linux just go with Fedora. Linux users (new and old)
>>>>> have more or less been inclined to Debian because yum-based distros
>>>>> were in really bad shape few years ago and that's when like others I
>>>>> shifted to using Ubuntu. But it's not the case anymore and Ubuntu has
>>>>> tons of problems now and rpm-based distros deserver one shot.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mention KVM because if one uses VMware workstation than KVM would be an option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I am doing these days is taking a veewee bare definition and using veewee-to-packer to get started with packer. I install chef/salt/puppet agents in the image so that I can use the 3 of them if I want to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we go with option 2 or 3, do you think debian 7.0 should be used as
>>>>>>> a starting point, or another version such as 7.2 or 7.3?  Or even
>>>>>>> another distro?
>>>>>
>>>>> Feel free to choose whatever distro gives us all the tools and whatnot
>>>>> to solve our problem. Distros and tools are not the problem having a
>>>>> host in a box for CloudStack development is the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are these goals still valid for devcloud3?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Two network interfaces, host-only adapter so that the VM is
>>>>>>> reachable from host os and a NAT so VMs can access Internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> This I guess will be most appreciated and useful for developers,
>>>>> probably first time users and for demo. Last time for some reason, I
>>>>> was unable to have Internet reach VMs inside DevCloud.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Can be used both as an all in one box solution like the original
>>>>>>> DevCloud but the mgmt server and other services can run elsewhere (on
>>>>>>> host os).
>>>>>
>>>>> This already works with last DevCloud.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Reduce resource requirements, so one could run it in 1G limit.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 though I think size is not a major issue and reduce image size is a
>>>>> good to have thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would be great, but remember that systemvm and ttylinux will run within it, so those 4 alone may use 1G
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Allow multiple DevCloud VMs hosts.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would be great. Having some skeleton for multiple devcloud hosts in a vagrant file so we can deploy "full" clouds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - x86 dom0 and xen-i386 so it runs on all host os.
>>>>>>> - Reduce exported appliance (ova) file size.
>>>>>>> - It should be seamless, it should work out of the box.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris, appreciate you taking time working on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are there any new requirements in addition to the ones discussed in
>>>>>>> this email chain, e.g.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - vagrant support (in addition to the ova/ovf image)
>>>>>>> - packer and vagrant build environment
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In simstack https://github.com/runseb/simstack I am trying to provide chef/salt/puppet recipes for the install. So in devcloud3, I would lay things out so that we can also do those 3 cfg mgt system in the future. Note that simstack is not devcloud as I am trying to run the simulator and have to compile from source because there is no simulator package.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/opscode/bento/tree/master/packer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for stepping in. That is much needed, in fact I think we should
>>>>>>>>> use something like packer alongwith vagrant/veewee for both devcloud
>>>>>>>>> and systemvmtemplate. Veewee can build vms, packer can export them to
>>>>>>>>> various platforms/formats and a developer could use vagrant for local
>>>>>>>>> devcloud/host automation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I looked into it the other day and I agree we need to revamp this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> veewee development and maintenance is going to stop. So we need to prep a packer version
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So yes we should create a packer definition for devcloud3 :) and be able to post-process it to vagrant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:30 AM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I would like to build the devcloud2 image [1] from scratch using
>>>>>>>>>> veewee (or packer) and turn it into a vagrant box.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There seems to be several versions of Vagrant files and veewee
>>>>>>>>>> definitions in the code base, making it difficult to know which one to
>>>>>>>>>> start from, or whether they are still valid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
>>>>>>> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
>>>> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69



-- 
Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
http://lnkd.in/cw5k69

Re: Devcloud 2 - veewee/Vagrant projects

Posted by chris snow <ch...@gmail.com>.

Thanks for the feedback Sebastien, it's much appreciated.

I'll investigate in more detail over the next few days...

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:25 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I finally got the packer built devcloud box to boot with vagrant, but
>>> running 'xe vm-list' in it results in:
>>>
>>> Error: Connection refused (calling connect )
>>>
>>> I'm going to do some more investigation, but could take a while as I
>>> get to learn xen.
>>>
>>> To make things easy while working on this I've created a github project here [2]
>>>
>>
>> I cloned it, the packer builds works and the vagrant export as well.
>> I was able to vagrant up/ssh.
>>
>> I noticed couple things.
>>
>> 1-the Xen setup. Check Rohit's blog http://bhaisaab.org he has a section on DIY Devcloud, where he shows how to setup Xen, namely xapi toolstack and creating a echo plugin.I think that's what you are missing, you can probably add this to your posinstall script
>>
>> 2-We switched master to java 7, so you should switch to openjdk-7
>>
>> 3- you might be missing a mysql-python-connector package and you should setup the mysql password as null (for dev).
>>
>
> One more. It looks like there is only one interface (NAT), probably need to play with the pressed.cfg to add a host only interface:
> https://github.com/snowch/devcloud/blob/master/http/preseed.cfg
>
>> This is looking quite nice :)
>>
>>> I've added the problem above as an issue on github.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/XenServer/VirtualBox#Installing_XCP
>>> [2] https://github.com/snowch/devcloud
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Rohit Yadav <ro...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:57 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have started thinking about some options:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1)  use packer to convert the devcloud2 veewee definition as a starting point
>>>>>> 2) create devcloud3 from scratch
>>>>>> 3) start with an existing packer definition (e.g. [1])
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have a view on which option may be most suitable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My view would be to start from scratch but of course looking at what has been done.
>>>>>
>>>>> In an ideal world, I would love to see a packer/vagrant file that would do:
>>>>>
>>>>> -Ubuntu and CentOS
>>>>> -Xen and KVM
>>>>>
>>>>> That way we can decide on what to build. Of course there might be issues due to the PV/HVM support in vbox and the OS chosen.
>>>>> I don't recall what the issue was that made Rohit use Debian (but see http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/), but ideally it would be good to use stock ubuntu 12.04 or 13.04
>>>>
>>>> DevCloud is just an appliance that facilitates a virtual host
>>>> (hypervisor) for development with CloudStack. So, I chose Debian
>>>> because well it's the best in terms of packages, stability, security
>>>> and is usually rock solid. Ubuntu at the time had a networking issue
>>>> that did not let me use xenbr0 for use over host-only network, I did
>>>> not invest much time on it but rather switched to Debian.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest we stick to Debian as it would be least painful for anyone
>>>> IMO and the problem we're trying to solve is to enable developers have
>>>> a robust (possibly multi-vm) hypervisor host in box (vm) over a
>>>> desktop virtualization platform (virtualbox, kvm etc.)
>>>>
>>>> (IMHO -- I wonder if you've tried latest rock-solid Fedora 20, Ubuntu
>>>> should have been least recommended distro by now don't use it please).
>>>>
>>>>> I list 13.04 because there seems to be an issue with libvirt in 12.04 in the case that you want ceph (http://ceph.com/docs/master/rbd/rbd-cloudstack/). Of course ceph on a single node does not make sense, but for a devcloud3 setup we could imagine setting up ceph in it and use it as primary storage.
>>>>
>>>> Why not build libvirt version we want? In case we want to stay updated
>>>> I can help you with Fedora 20 based base or Arch based base for
>>>> devcloud. I've been using Fedora for some months now and I guess if
>>>> someone want latest and greatest but want to avoid a lot of sysadmin
>>>> work as with Arch Linux just go with Fedora. Linux users (new and old)
>>>> have more or less been inclined to Debian because yum-based distros
>>>> were in really bad shape few years ago and that's when like others I
>>>> shifted to using Ubuntu. But it's not the case anymore and Ubuntu has
>>>> tons of problems now and rpm-based distros deserver one shot.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I mention KVM because if one uses VMware workstation than KVM would be an option.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I am doing these days is taking a veewee bare definition and using veewee-to-packer to get started with packer. I install chef/salt/puppet agents in the image so that I can use the 3 of them if I want to.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If we go with option 2 or 3, do you think debian 7.0 should be used as
>>>>>> a starting point, or another version such as 7.2 or 7.3?  Or even
>>>>>> another distro?
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to choose whatever distro gives us all the tools and whatnot
>>>> to solve our problem. Distros and tools are not the problem having a
>>>> host in a box for CloudStack development is the problem.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are these goals still valid for devcloud3?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Two network interfaces, host-only adapter so that the VM is
>>>>>> reachable from host os and a NAT so VMs can access Internet.
>>>>
>>>> This I guess will be most appreciated and useful for developers,
>>>> probably first time users and for demo. Last time for some reason, I
>>>> was unable to have Internet reach VMs inside DevCloud.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes
>>>>>
>>>>>> - Can be used both as an all in one box solution like the original
>>>>>> DevCloud but the mgmt server and other services can run elsewhere (on
>>>>>> host os).
>>>>
>>>> This already works with last DevCloud.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes
>>>>>
>>>>>> - Reduce resource requirements, so one could run it in 1G limit.
>>>>
>>>> +1 though I think size is not a major issue and reduce image size is a
>>>> good to have thing.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Would be great, but remember that systemvm and ttylinux will run within it, so those 4 alone may use 1G
>>>>>
>>>>>> - Allow multiple DevCloud VMs hosts.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be great. Having some skeleton for multiple devcloud hosts in a vagrant file so we can deploy "full" clouds.
>>>>>
>>>>>> - x86 dom0 and xen-i386 so it runs on all host os.
>>>>>> - Reduce exported appliance (ova) file size.
>>>>>> - It should be seamless, it should work out of the box.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Chris, appreciate you taking time working on this.
>>>>
>>>> Regards.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> yes
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there any new requirements in addition to the ones discussed in
>>>>>> this email chain, e.g.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - vagrant support (in addition to the ova/ovf image)
>>>>>> - packer and vagrant build environment
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In simstack https://github.com/runseb/simstack I am trying to provide chef/salt/puppet recipes for the install. So in devcloud3, I would lay things out so that we can also do those 3 cfg mgt system in the future. Note that simstack is not devcloud as I am trying to run the simulator and have to compile from source because there is no simulator package.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/opscode/bento/tree/master/packer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for stepping in. That is much needed, in fact I think we should
>>>>>>>> use something like packer alongwith vagrant/veewee for both devcloud
>>>>>>>> and systemvmtemplate. Veewee can build vms, packer can export them to
>>>>>>>> various platforms/formats and a developer could use vagrant for local
>>>>>>>> devcloud/host automation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I looked into it the other day and I agree we need to revamp this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> veewee development and maintenance is going to stop. So we need to prep a packer version
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So yes we should create a packer definition for devcloud3 :) and be able to post-process it to vagrant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:30 AM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I would like to build the devcloud2 image [1] from scratch using
>>>>>>>>> veewee (or packer) and turn it into a vagrant box.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There seems to be several versions of Vagrant files and veewee
>>>>>>>>> definitions in the code base, making it difficult to know which one to
>>>>>>>>> start from, or whether they are still valid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
>>>>>> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
>>> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>>
>



-- 
Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
http://lnkd.in/cw5k69

Re: Devcloud 2 - veewee/Vagrant projects

Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.

On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:25 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I finally got the packer built devcloud box to boot with vagrant, but
>> running 'xe vm-list' in it results in:
>> 
>> Error: Connection refused (calling connect )
>> 
>> I'm going to do some more investigation, but could take a while as I
>> get to learn xen.
>> 
>> To make things easy while working on this I've created a github project here [2]
>> 
> 
> I cloned it, the packer builds works and the vagrant export as well.
> I was able to vagrant up/ssh.
> 
> I noticed couple things.
> 
> 1-the Xen setup. Check Rohit's blog http://bhaisaab.org he has a section on DIY Devcloud, where he shows how to setup Xen, namely xapi toolstack and creating a echo plugin.I think that's what you are missing, you can probably add this to your posinstall script
> 
> 2-We switched master to java 7, so you should switch to openjdk-7
> 
> 3- you might be missing a mysql-python-connector package and you should setup the mysql password as null (for dev).
> 

One more. It looks like there is only one interface (NAT), probably need to play with the pressed.cfg to add a host only interface:
https://github.com/snowch/devcloud/blob/master/http/preseed.cfg

> This is looking quite nice :)
> 
>> I've added the problem above as an issue on github.
>> 
>> ---
>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/XenServer/VirtualBox#Installing_XCP
>> [2] https://github.com/snowch/devcloud
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Rohit Yadav <ro...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:57 PM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I have started thinking about some options:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1)  use packer to convert the devcloud2 veewee definition as a starting point
>>>>> 2) create devcloud3 from scratch
>>>>> 3) start with an existing packer definition (e.g. [1])
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do you have a view on which option may be most suitable?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> My view would be to start from scratch but of course looking at what has been done.
>>>> 
>>>> In an ideal world, I would love to see a packer/vagrant file that would do:
>>>> 
>>>> -Ubuntu and CentOS
>>>> -Xen and KVM
>>>> 
>>>> That way we can decide on what to build. Of course there might be issues due to the PV/HVM support in vbox and the OS chosen.
>>>> I don't recall what the issue was that made Rohit use Debian (but see http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/), but ideally it would be good to use stock ubuntu 12.04 or 13.04
>>> 
>>> DevCloud is just an appliance that facilitates a virtual host
>>> (hypervisor) for development with CloudStack. So, I chose Debian
>>> because well it's the best in terms of packages, stability, security
>>> and is usually rock solid. Ubuntu at the time had a networking issue
>>> that did not let me use xenbr0 for use over host-only network, I did
>>> not invest much time on it but rather switched to Debian.
>>> 
>>> I suggest we stick to Debian as it would be least painful for anyone
>>> IMO and the problem we're trying to solve is to enable developers have
>>> a robust (possibly multi-vm) hypervisor host in box (vm) over a
>>> desktop virtualization platform (virtualbox, kvm etc.)
>>> 
>>> (IMHO -- I wonder if you've tried latest rock-solid Fedora 20, Ubuntu
>>> should have been least recommended distro by now don't use it please).
>>> 
>>>> I list 13.04 because there seems to be an issue with libvirt in 12.04 in the case that you want ceph (http://ceph.com/docs/master/rbd/rbd-cloudstack/). Of course ceph on a single node does not make sense, but for a devcloud3 setup we could imagine setting up ceph in it and use it as primary storage.
>>> 
>>> Why not build libvirt version we want? In case we want to stay updated
>>> I can help you with Fedora 20 based base or Arch based base for
>>> devcloud. I've been using Fedora for some months now and I guess if
>>> someone want latest and greatest but want to avoid a lot of sysadmin
>>> work as with Arch Linux just go with Fedora. Linux users (new and old)
>>> have more or less been inclined to Debian because yum-based distros
>>> were in really bad shape few years ago and that's when like others I
>>> shifted to using Ubuntu. But it's not the case anymore and Ubuntu has
>>> tons of problems now and rpm-based distros deserver one shot.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I mention KVM because if one uses VMware workstation than KVM would be an option.
>>>> 
>>>> What I am doing these days is taking a veewee bare definition and using veewee-to-packer to get started with packer. I install chef/salt/puppet agents in the image so that I can use the 3 of them if I want to.
>>>> 
>>>>> If we go with option 2 or 3, do you think debian 7.0 should be used as
>>>>> a starting point, or another version such as 7.2 or 7.3?  Or even
>>>>> another distro?
>>> 
>>> Feel free to choose whatever distro gives us all the tools and whatnot
>>> to solve our problem. Distros and tools are not the problem having a
>>> host in a box for CloudStack development is the problem.
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Are these goals still valid for devcloud3?
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Two network interfaces, host-only adapter so that the VM is
>>>>> reachable from host os and a NAT so VMs can access Internet.
>>> 
>>> This I guess will be most appreciated and useful for developers,
>>> probably first time users and for demo. Last time for some reason, I
>>> was unable to have Internet reach VMs inside DevCloud.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Yes
>>>> 
>>>>> - Can be used both as an all in one box solution like the original
>>>>> DevCloud but the mgmt server and other services can run elsewhere (on
>>>>> host os).
>>> 
>>> This already works with last DevCloud.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Yes
>>>> 
>>>>> - Reduce resource requirements, so one could run it in 1G limit.
>>> 
>>> +1 though I think size is not a major issue and reduce image size is a
>>> good to have thing.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Would be great, but remember that systemvm and ttylinux will run within it, so those 4 alone may use 1G
>>>> 
>>>>> - Allow multiple DevCloud VMs hosts.
>>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> That would be great. Having some skeleton for multiple devcloud hosts in a vagrant file so we can deploy "full" clouds.
>>>> 
>>>>> - x86 dom0 and xen-i386 so it runs on all host os.
>>>>> - Reduce exported appliance (ova) file size.
>>>>> - It should be seamless, it should work out of the box.
>>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> Chris, appreciate you taking time working on this.
>>> 
>>> Regards.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> yes
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Are there any new requirements in addition to the ones discussed in
>>>>> this email chain, e.g.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - vagrant support (in addition to the ova/ovf image)
>>>>> - packer and vagrant build environment
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> In simstack https://github.com/runseb/simstack I am trying to provide chef/salt/puppet recipes for the install. So in devcloud3, I would lay things out so that we can also do those 3 cfg mgt system in the future. Note that simstack is not devcloud as I am trying to run the simulator and have to compile from source because there is no simulator package.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Chris
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1] https://github.com/opscode/bento/tree/master/packer
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks for stepping in. That is much needed, in fact I think we should
>>>>>>> use something like packer alongwith vagrant/veewee for both devcloud
>>>>>>> and systemvmtemplate. Veewee can build vms, packer can export them to
>>>>>>> various platforms/formats and a developer could use vagrant for local
>>>>>>> devcloud/host automation.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I looked into it the other day and I agree we need to revamp this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> veewee development and maintenance is going to stop. So we need to prep a packer version
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So yes we should create a packer definition for devcloud3 :) and be able to post-process it to vagrant.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:30 AM, chris snow <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I would like to build the devcloud2 image [1] from scratch using
>>>>>>>> veewee (or packer) and turn it into a vagrant box.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There seems to be several versions of Vagrant files and veewee
>>>>>>>> definitions in the code base, making it difficult to know which one to
>>>>>>>> start from, or whether they are still valid.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [1] http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
>>>>> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
>> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
>