A out of topic question. Is LXC preferred by most hosting company than KVM/XEN? Looks like it's performance is better
> -----Original Message----- > From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:45 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Cc: Edison Su > Subject: Re: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack > > 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" <akaras...@apache.org> wrote: > > >On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Phong Nguyen <pngu...@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.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > On 1/7/13 1:17 PM, "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > > >> > >On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Alex Karasulu > <akaras...@apache.org> > >> > >wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Alex Karasulu > >> > >><akaras...@apache.org>wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Hi Phong, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Phong Nguyen > <pngu...@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
