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+Cloudstack
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. 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? 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. > >
