On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@citrix.com> wrote: > I'm running OSX 10.8 too, but using either vagrant forks it fails for me but > I think I understand why it fails for me now; > Chip's fork failed with the reason that vbox 4.2 was not supported, and the > upstream fork failed because of the "with_ssh" option. > > I think if Chip can help us pull in latest changes from vagrant upstream and > provide drivers for vbox 4.x, it may work. I checked, so the current upstream > git repo has no drivers, I think somehow they got rid of it.
I've updated my fork: https://github.com/chipchilders/vagrant Please give it a test and let me know! I'll try to look at breaking out our customizations into plugins in the next couple of weeks. > About the nic issue, the order should not matter, just that I'm not sure what > happens to the instances running on xen, as they would have br0 as default > nic to talk to which is nat so make things tricky. > Nevertheless, host-only is reachable via nat. Can you confirm that the xenbox > that is built on your system works fine as a devcloud appliance with > CloudStack? > > Regards. > > ________________________________________ > From: James Martin [jmar...@basho.com] > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 10:21 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Review Request: cleanup devcloud creation process > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@citrix.com> wrote: >> For me xenbox build fails because of virtualbox and some vagrant param error >> which I was not able to figure out why. It's a different problem for me, I >> could n't even see the box being built. I'll try with debian wheezy as well >> (the devcloud appliance I published was created out of wheezy). > > What OS are you running? I'm using OSX 10.8, and didn't experience > these issues. Please post the errors you encountered. > >> >> Also, can be switch to the default vagrant repo >> (https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant) because maintaining a fork can be a >> lot of work and avoid using two versions of vagrant which I saw in deps/. > > > This is the reason you can't use the default vagrant repo, as outlined > here : > http://www.chipchilders.com/blog/2012/8/14/automatically-building-devcloud-images-for-apache-cloudstack.html > > "Vagrant requires the use of the Virtual Box Guest Additions for many > of it's features. Unfortunately, we were unable to get the Guest > Additions kernel module to load correctly when the VM booted into the > Xen Server configuration. The puppet provisioner module relies on > VirtualBox shared folders, which don't function without that properly > loaded Guest Additions kernel module. Since we were trying to use the > Vagrant Puppet provisioner, we were stuck. To get around that, Edison > modified the Vagrant core code itself, so that it could use a > "with_ssh" option for it's puppet provisioner to SCP files onto the > VM. > > We also had an issue with guest OS identification within Vagrant. Even > though we had added a new OS type (xen), there were problems getting > Vagrant to skip it's attempt to mount shared folders. You can see the > changes that were required in Vagrant if you check out the hacked > version of Vagrant on Github." > > >> For the basebox, the nic settings are fine. But for xenbox we'll need two >> nics, nic1:host-only and nic2:nat. > > This will not work with vagrant. As documented here: > https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant/issues/641: > > "The first NIC is always a NAT. Vagrant requires it that way." Based > on that requirement, we will have to adapt devcloud to use eth0 as NAT > and eth1 as Host Only. > > > - James > >> >> Thank you for your work. >> Rohit >> ________________________________________ >> From: James Martin [nore...@reviews.apache.org] On Behalf Of James Martin >> [jmar...@basho.com] >> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:52 PM >> To: Prasanna Santhanam; Rohit Yadav >> Cc: cloudstack; James Martin >> Subject: Re: Review Request: cleanup devcloud creation process >> >>> On Dec. 15, 2012, 3:39 a.m., Rohit Yadav wrote: >>> > Pfew, took me few hours to test and fix few issues. >>> > First of all I want to give you kudos for your work, Kudos! >>> > That said, the patch fails on multiple cases. I'll commit that so we can >>> > continue working on it. >>> > I'm able to create a basebox but vagrant fails on xenbox. Pl. test it at >>> > your end also. >>> > Will try to fix this issue, next week in free time. >>> > >>> > Here are some of my reviews and comments: >>> > >>> > 0. I moved all the stuff in tools/devcloud/src/ and fixed the README.md >>> > file for some of the things which failed for me. >>> > 1. Is there a way we can use the default vagrant release without having >>> > to use a fork? >>> > 2. VirtualBox 4.2 was not supported, can you or Chip help fix vagrant? >>> > >>> > I did a workaround that worked for me: >>> > diff --git a/lib/vagrant/driver/virtualbox.rb >>> > b/lib/vagrant/driver/virtualbox.rb >>> > index baf462b..5a1dce2 100644 >>> > --- a/lib/vagrant/driver/virtualbox.rb >>> > +++ b/lib/vagrant/driver/virtualbox.rb >>> > @@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ module Vagrant >>> > @logger.debug("Finding driver for VirtualBox version: >>> > #{@version}") >>> > driver_map = { >>> > "4.0" => VirtualBox_4_0, >>> > - "4.1" => VirtualBox_4_1 >>> > + "4.1" => VirtualBox_4_1, >>> > + "4.2" => VirtualBox_4_1, >>> > } >>> > >>> > driver_klass = nil >>> > >>> > 3. The default basebox has only one NIC, which fails as DevCloud needs to >>> > have >>> > two nics; first one should be the host-only one and second one should be >>> > the >>> > NAT. >>> >>> Rohit Yadav wrote: >>> Lastly, one more thing. We should move all the stuff that is not >>> directly related to CloudStack in separate git repos which would make >>> maintaining them more easy and distribution as well. But, since the code on >>> devcloud build automation was already within the source code I'll commit >>> the changes. (upto community to decide on this) >> >> Thanks a lot for taking a look at it. I too am having an issue with the >> xenbox build, it's not able to apt-get some packages. Is this the same >> problem you were having? >> >> 1. As I understand it, the reason we have to use chip's fork of vagrant is >> outlined here: >> http://www.chipchilders.com/blog/2012/8/14/automatically-building-devcloud-images-for-apache-cloudstack.html. >> (We actually use 2 versions of vagrant to get things working properly). >> >> 2. I'll talk to Chip about fixing his fork for Virtualbox 4.2 support. >> >> 3. The basebox does have only one nic, but the devcloud box has 2 nics. In >> this case, eth1 is hostonly, and eth0 is NAT. The default NIC in vagrant is >> eth0 and NAT, I could not find a way to change that, but I'll take another >> peak. >> >> Thanks again. >> >> - James >> >> >> - James >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/8399/#review14536 >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> On Dec. 8, 2012, 5:31 p.m., James Martin wrote: >>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/8399/ >>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> (Updated Dec. 8, 2012, 5:31 p.m.) >>> >>> >>> Review request for cloudstack, Prasanna Santhanam and Rohit Yadav. >>> >>> >>> Description >>> ------- >>> >>> This diff cleans up the devcloud build process. >>> >>> Please see tools/devcloud/README.md for more information. >>> >>> I also have a fork of cloudstack available with this change: >>> >>> https://github.com/jsmartin/incubator-cloudstack/tree/devcloud-cleanup >>> >>> >>> Diffs >>> ----- >>> >>> >>> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8399/diff/ >>> >>> >>> Testing >>> ------- >>> >>> Built the veewee basebox and the vagrant xenbox. >>> Built a cloudstack vagrant box. >>> Was able to reach cloudstack at http://192.168.56.10:8080/client >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> James Martin >>> >>> >> >
