Phong, Please also add a bug to CloudStack Jira and reference this email thread.
Github is the best place to start development. --Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: Phong Nguyen [mailto:pngu...@gilt.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 3:25 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack > > 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. > > > >
