Depends, We wrote our own WMF/CMS applications,, and I designed a custom D-RAAS (Distributed Redundant Arrays of Application Servers) on top of IaaS. I would never use LXC, the tradeoffs are too immense, the performance might be better, but the you can't easily build 'hot-swappable' systems out of LXC, where traditional VMs are more 'decupled' from the host.
It really comes down to preference I suppose. I have mainly seen LXC implementation in bare-metal farms, and competitors to traditional cloud services. -kd >-----Original Message----- >From: Frank Zhang [mailto:frank.zh...@citrix.com] >Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:11 PM >To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >Subject: RE: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack > >A out of topic question. >Is LXC preferred by most hosting company than KVM/XEN? Looks like it's >performance is better > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com] >> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:45 PM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Cc: Edison Su >> Subject: Re: Adding LXC support to Cloudstack >> >> Any updates / help? >> >> 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. >> >> 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). >> >> >> 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=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. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >-- >> >Best Regards, >> >-- Alex
