2014/1/22 Anders Ingemann <[email protected]> > On 22 January 2014 11:41, olivier sallou <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> >> 2014/1/22 Anders Ingemann <[email protected]> >> >>> On 22 January 2014 10:43, olivier sallou <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014/1/22 Anders Ingemann <[email protected]> >>>> >>>>> On 22 January 2014 08:23, olivier sallou <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014/1/22 Jimmy Kaplowitz <[email protected]> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Neat. Yeah, a GCE image is simply a raw bootable disk named >>>>>>> disk.raw, compressed in a gzipped GNU-format tarball with a filename >>>>>>> ending >>>>>>> in .tar.gz. We also encourage creating disk.raw as a sparse file and >>>>>>> using >>>>>>> GNU tar's S flag to minimize image size and add time. The tarball is >>>>>>> necessary but hopefully the code is general enough to handle that. >>>>>>> Certain >>>>>>> bits of our image snapshotting tool gcimagebundle expect everything >>>>>>> aside >>>>>>> from the bootloader to be in a single MSDOS partition number 1. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I think this is the case for virtualbox provider. >>>>>> >>>>>>> We make various tweaks, such as installing the various integration >>>>>>> software I've mentioned before, pointing to our Debian mirror, and (with >>>>>>> Tomasz's pull request into the google GitHub fork) the host machine's >>>>>>> NTP >>>>>>> server, etc. Nothing that changes the essence. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Some of those (setting up a mirror, installing packages) can be done: >>>>>> 1) with plugins (but as it is a requirement for you this is not the >>>>>> best choice) >>>>>> 2) in your plugin task, use the library part that manage package >>>>>> install etc.. if you look at cloud-init plugin task for example, you will >>>>>> see how to add a source (here debian backports) and packages to the image >>>>>> (here "sudo"). >>>>>> >>>>>> The rest of the plugin task can focus on copying some files in the >>>>>> image, setting ntp etc... >>>>>> >>>>>>> The strategy you suggest sounds worth trying indeed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Jimmy >>>>>>> On Jan 21, 2014 10:32 PM, "olivier sallou" <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2014/1/21 Tomasz Rybak <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As Jimmy wrote in his email from 2014-01-14, I started >>>>>>>>> looking at GCE-related parts of build-debian-cloud. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I assume that the course for now is changing the scripts >>>>>>>>> to work in Python, similar to what's being done with EC2 >>>>>>>>> and VirtualBox parts. Should we branch from andsens/python >>>>>>>>> and work on it, or do something else? Also, who'll create >>>>>>>>> the main branch (GCE-python-WIP?), into which we would >>>>>>>>> pull proposed changes? I think the best solution would be >>>>>>>>> to create such branch in repository >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/google/build-debian-cloud >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As for the work to do, I think we'll need to: >>>>>>>>> 1. change gce file to proper manifest >>>>>>>>> 2. move tasks from tasks/gce to providers/gce and >>>>>>>>> rewrite them in Python >>>>>>>>> 3. integrate cloud-init when appropriate >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the base image requirement is a raw image file and GCE only adds >>>>>>>> startup/management scripts for boot etc... you may only develop a >>>>>>>> plugin >>>>>>>> and use VirtualBox provider which is in fact a quite generic one (not >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> virtualbox). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I personnaly use VirtualBox provider for my KVM machines and use >>>>>>>> the opennebula plugin for the OpenNebula contextualization (will be >>>>>>>> modified soon to use cloud-init too). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then, for GCE, it would be, for the user, only a matter of user >>>>>>>> VirtualBox provider (raw format) and activating the GCE plugin. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Olivier >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is rough idea, and I have not touched >>>>>>>>> packaging of >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/compute-image-packages >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Have I missed something? I assume we need to have >>>>>>>>> more detailed plan of moving to Python so anyone >>>>>>>>> can see what is to be done and volunteer to some >>>>>>>>> tasks ;-) For now I just want to start discussion >>>>>>>>> to see what I forgot about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Tomasz Rybak GPG/PGP key ID: 2AD5 9860 >>>>>>>>> Fingerprint A481 824E 7DD3 9C0E C40A 488E C654 FB33 2AD5 9860 >>>>>>>>> http://member.acm.org/~tomaszrybak >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> gpg key id: 4096R/326D8438 (keyring.debian.org) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Key fingerprint = 5FB4 6F83 D3B9 5204 6335 D26D 78DC 68DB 326D 8438 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> gpg key id: 4096R/326D8438 (keyring.debian.org) >>>>>> >>>>>> Key fingerprint = 5FB4 6F83 D3B9 5204 6335 D26D 78DC 68DB 326D 8438 >>>>>> >>>>>> Heh, it's great to see others are able to figure out my framework >>>>> already, without documentation. I should really get on with writing it >>>>> though... :-) >>>>> >>>>> > If the base image requirement is a raw image file and GCE only >>>>> adds startup/management scripts for boot etc... you may only develop a >>>>> plugin and use VirtualBox provider which is in fact a quite generic one >>>>> (not only virtualbox). >>>>> >>>>> I would strongly suggest to refrain from doing that. If the VirtualBox >>>>> provider is indeed very generic, things should be abstracted into task >>>>> sets. I have not abstracted much of it until now, since I wasn't aware of >>>>> the commonalities between providers (given that there are only to - or >>>>> three now with kvm). If You add GCE as a separate provider, I can take a >>>>> look at it and create some new tasksets that should make the task >>>>> resolving >>>>> a bit easier. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So, do you think we should create a KVM provider ? (which would be 99% >>>> equivalent to VirtualBox for the moment but would preserve from virtualbox >>>> modifications) >>>> >>>> Olivier >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The advantages of having a provider rather than a plugin are manifold. >>>>> >>>>> 1. Plugins tasks will be resolved *after* the provider tasks, >>>>> meaning they will be able to remove some provider tasks if they do >>>>> something more specific. >>>>> 2. You can enforce plugin compatibility in the manifest schemas by >>>>> looking at the provider string, having a plugin look at what other >>>>> plugins >>>>> are loaded is just messy. >>>>> >>>>> Disadvantages of creating a provider as a plugin: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Any changes you make because the virtualbox provider doesn't >>>>> quite fit will become hard to understand - one provider adding a task >>>>> and >>>>> the plugin removing that same task... you might end up with a tasklist >>>>> that >>>>> is completely different from virtualbox (once you are done). >>>>> 2. Changes to the virtualbox provider will now have to be >>>>> carefully made because other providers suddenly rely on it >>>>> 3. You will have a hard time adding special things to the manifest >>>>> since the vbox provider applies its own manifest schema >>>>> >>>>> > In your plugin task, use the library part that manage package >>>>> install etc.. if you look at cloud-init plugin task for example, you will >>>>> see how to add a source (here debian backports) and packages to the image >>>>> (here "sudo"). >>>>> What he said! The package API can save you a lot of trouble. Btw, you >>>>> can add trusted keyrings to apt through the manifest as well. >>>>> >>>>> Anders >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> gpg key id: 4096R/326D8438 (keyring.debian.org) >>>> >>>> Key fingerprint = 5FB4 6F83 D3B9 5204 6335 D26D 78DC 68DB 326D 8438 >>>> >>>> >>> > So, do you think we should create a KVM provider? >>> I do. Surely things like guest additions/guest tools are different. It >>> would also allow use to make a proper vagrant box for it. >>> The big challenge is making some proper taskset abstractions. It should >>> be possible to create a minimal resolve_tasks() function if we code the >>> tasksets properly (seeing how vbox and kvm are very similar), this would be >>> very useful for future providers as well (e.g. gce or hp-cloud). >>> >> For the current code, the only difference between VB and KVM is KVM have >> no guest-additions and expect raw format instead of vdi. >> >> Olivier >> >> >> >> -- >> >> gpg key id: 4096R/326D8438 (keyring.debian.org) >> >> Key fingerprint = 5FB4 6F83 D3B9 5204 6335 D26D 78DC 68DB 326D 8438 >> >> > Alright, but something like the virtio > drivers<http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Virtio> would > be useful, right? >
I first planned to create a plugin for this above vb provider, but if we have a kvm provider it would make sense in this case to create a specific optional task in kvm provider. -- gpg key id: 4096R/326D8438 (keyring.debian.org) Key fingerprint = 5FB4 6F83 D3B9 5204 6335 D26D 78DC 68DB 326D 8438
