Marcus, let me know I can install qemu-guest-agent during postinstallation phase of the systemvmtemplate, and in patches/systemvm you can configure cloud-early-config or a script which runs this service? During startup of a systemvm template, systemvm.iso is used to patch this template to create one of ssvm, cpvm or rvm.
Regards. On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a request that if we provide a system vm going forward that it > have virtio_console support from early on, as well as qemu-ga > (qemu-guest-agent) service started before cloud-early-config, so we > can use it to control the system vms on KVM. > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti > <sudha.ponnaga...@citrix.com> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> Just want to summarize what QA is doing for 4.1 validation and 4.2 so we are >> all on the same page. >> >> 4.1 >> * we will use 4.0 template for IPV4 testing ( all QA uses this one) - (Even >> for this VMWare template is broken [1] and that is a different topic) >> *Sangeetha who is testing IPV6 or any others who are interested can use >> template provided by Sheng. >> >> 4.2 ( Master) >> * Continue to use older templates (4.0) temporarily till Rohit makes the >> template process streamlined for all HVs >> * Reason is being that blockers are being logged against new procedure done >> by Rohit [2]. It need to be tested and all templates ( xen/vmware/kvm) need >> to completed. >> * once he gives a go ahead all QA will consume that. >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1252 >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1462 >> >> Hope this approach is fine for everyone. >> >> Thanks >> /Sudha >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:13 PM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release? >> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:47:25AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal >>> <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: >>> > >>> >>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted >>> >>alone, I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole >>> >>4.1 release, to avoid confusion. >>> > >>> > As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion. >>> > People are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since >>> > it is considered experimental. >>> > I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this >>> > stage of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go >>> > with the 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks >>> > ago, I'd say, 'yeah, probably OK'. >>> >>> I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would >>> need a template. I stated so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I >>> opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1. Thanks to Rohit, we >>> started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine. >>> >>> But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the >>> issue raised by QA at last minute. >>> >>> I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in >>> 4.1. Seems nobody cares. >>> > >>> >> >>> >>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm >>> >>template for one release would be tricky I think. >>> > >>> > Yes, but it is experimental. >>> > >>> >> >>> >>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained >>> >>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside >>> >>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, >>> >>tested enough for default template. >>> > >>> > These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we >>> > could use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the >>> > apt-get unless some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For >>> > example: >>> > - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or >>> > - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created. >>> >>> I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or >>> confident. >>> >>> I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things. >>> >>> According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's >>> right that people not quite interested in ipv6. >> >> To be clear, I personally am *very* interested in getting IPv6 support. >> I think what we are talking about is the fact that this is experimental for >> 4.1 (as previously agreed). >> >>> >>> Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable >>> with updated template. >> >> +1 to that approach. >> >> And another +1 to the implied implementation of IPv6, plus a new template, >> plus a new template build process, plus the UI, plus lots of testing... to >> make IPv6 support a full feature for 4.2. >> >>> >>> --Sheng >>> >>> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785 >>> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387 >>> [3] >>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus >>> =15159 >>> > >>> >> >>> >>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade >>> >>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't >>> >>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it >>> >>again, Kelven should able to help with it. >>> >> >>> >>--Sheng >>> >> >>> >>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers >>> >><chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: >>> >>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless >>> >>>>the ipv6 feature is required in which case: >>> >>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been >>> >>>>testing with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta) >>> >>>>B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is >>> >>>>created) to >>> >>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages> >>> >>> >>> >>> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would >>> >>> be considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if >>> >>> someone wants to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do >>> >>> a little more work to get the correct system VM. >>> >>> >>> >>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one. >>> >>> >>> >>> Other thoughts? >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bhais...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >> When I first report the bug >>> >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066 >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need. >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't >>> >>>> >>aware of that. >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the >>> >>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since >>> >>>> >I started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the >>> >>>> >version to >>> >>>> >4.2 >>> >>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make >>> >>>> >it in 4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and >>> >>>> >we've an automated jenkins job. The only problems are: >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1 >>> >>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the >>> >>>> >appliance/template really works [2] >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I >>> >>>> >would try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least >>> >>>> >before 28/2, I really want to see your feature go in 4.1 Since, >>> >>>> >4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at >>> >>>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be >>> >>>> >used in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) >>> >>>> >and we could still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few >>> >>>> >more weeks before the release; otherwise we can always use the same >>> >>>> >old template. >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc? >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> >Regards. >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066 >>> >>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340 >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> --Sheng >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers >>> >>>> >> <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan >>> >>>> >>> Purushothama >>> >>>>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature >>> >>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The >>> >>>> >>>>system >>> >>>>VM >>> >>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-m >>> >>>>>>>>aster/ >>> >>>>>>>>las >>> >>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am >>> >>>> >>>>referring to the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my >>> >>>> >>>>question. >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use >>> >>>> >>> now >>> >>>>are the >>> >>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix >>> >>>>pre-ASF). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > >>>
