Thats why I did some in person work. I am going to really try and massage my relationship with Brocade and get access to the Vyatta engineers.
Hopefully between us we can get in touch with at least one influencer at Brocade/Vyatta. -kd -----Original Message----- From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:19 AM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: CentOS System VM? I started contacting few people, I contacted CEO of Vyatta and another person who now works for Citrix but was VP of Marketing for Vyatta. I did both contacts via LinkedIn. I do think LinkedIn will probably be ignored because it's a great marketing spam tool. We should try direct email. -----Original Message----- From: Kelceydamage@bbits [mailto:kel...@bbits.ca] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 12:42 PM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: CentOS System VM? Interesting, I spoke with Brocade yesterday and the also feel their Vyatta acquisition is a good gap offering for cloud services. Maybe we should see if their willing to produce the code? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 6, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Clayton Weise <cwe...@iswest.net> wrote: > I would love to see a Vyatta based router as well, and they have a RESTful API (which is both good and bad given the mixture of tools. But making use of a REST interface on a virtual router opens up the ability to integrate with other vendors who have virtual router/firewall appliances. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 8:43 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: CentOS System VM? > > Vyatta provides great L3-L4 support with good number of features and interface. > > If there is a doc on how to create and integrate your system offering - that would be great. Unfortunately vyatta is also debian based.. but that's not exactly a hard negative. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:25 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: CentOS System VM? > > I guess we can try creating alternative system offering :) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kelceydamage@bbits [mailto:kel...@bbits.ca] > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 3:17 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: CentOS System VM? > > I'm also interested in swapping out ha_proxy for nginx so the lb feature can support SSL termination. Currently building my own VRs as guest VMs on shared networks for that feature. > > Is the community thinking about proper ssl endpoints and offloading? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 5, 2012, at 11:30 PM, "Musayev, Ilya" <imusa...@webmd.net> wrote: > >> Granted both debian wheezy and centos/rhel 6, run the same major kernel version 2.6.32 i386 and hopefully same glibc library (need to confirm) - it should be really easy to port the code over without needing to recompile anything. I don't believe we do anything overly complex - within application code - that would glue components to specific OS. Applications like apache, dns masq, haproxy, sshd and dhcp can be stock versions of what OS vendor released. >> >> This is my observations so far and I will give it a shot when time allows to confirm. >> >> If someone knows of reason why this would fail, please let me know so I don't waste my time:) but I am fairly optimistic. >> >> Thanks >> Ilya >> >> "Kelceydamage@bbits" <kel...@bbits.ca> wrote: >> This sounds great, however I am hoping for updated wiki on how to create your own system vm(distro). >> >> Maybe one day.... >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Dec 5, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> The current system vm is getting long in the tooth. I (or Rohit >>> Yadav) will looking into building a wheezy-based systemvm that >>> includes hyper-v drivers. >>> Hopefully network throughput should be better as well when used with >>> multiple cores. >>> >>> On 12/5/12 10:38 AM, "Jason Davis" <scr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> TBH Hyper-V synthetic drivers(modules) is supported in the mainline >>>> kernel. >>>> >>>> So the argument that CentOS 6.x has better support is moot. >>>> >>>> This assumes that the kernel version on the SSVM is at least 2.6.32. >>>> I ran Ubuntu Server 11.x and Centos 6.x on Hyper-V natively and >>>> just needed to load the kernel modules for the synthetic stuffs to work. >>>> >>>> Ancient example of getting the Hyper-V modules built/working on >>>> Debian 6.0 >>>> http://virtualisationandmanagement.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/debian- >>>> o n-hype r-v-with-4-vcpu-support-and-syntetic-network/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Kelceydamage@bbits >>>> <kel...@bbits.ca> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm very interested in this. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 5, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Donal Lafferty >>>>> <donal.laffe...@citrix.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Has anyone looked into building a system VM that runs on a CentOS >>>>> distro? >>>>> >>> >> > > > >
