> -----Original Message----- > From: akaras...@gmail.com [mailto:akaras...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Alex Karasulu > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 2:24 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack > > Hi Chiradeep, > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Chiradeep Vittal < > chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > Any updates / help? > > > > > Just as an update Phong has made some progress creating LXC based virtual > machines via the libvirt interface. I myself have not caught up to him, just > started stepping through code to see how it would work. > > We have weekly meetings on Tuesdays just to see where we are. I'll see > about getting a formal update to the list by then.
Could you add me into the meeting in the future? I am interested in this area, and let's see what I can help on the storage side. > > > > 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. > > > > > This is good to know. I know Phong and I both had some questions about > storage matters. > > > > 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). > > > > > > > Thanks for the heads up and offer to help. After meeting with Phong next > week we'll report back to the list. > > Regards, > Alex > > > > 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=280308 > > >> > >>>> 21 > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> 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 > > > > > > > -- > Best Regards, > -- Alex
