I finally got the packer built devcloud box to boot with vagrant, but running 'xe vm-list' in it results in:
Error: Connection refused (calling connect ) I'm going to do some more investigation, but could take a while as I get to learn xen. To make things easy while working on this I've created a github project here [2] I've added the problem above as an issue on github. --- [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/XenServer/VirtualBox#Installing_XCP [2] https://github.com/snowch/devcloud On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@citrix.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:57 PM, chris snow <chsnow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I have started thinking about some options: >>> >>> 1) use packer to convert the devcloud2 veewee definition as a starting >>> point >>> 2) create devcloud3 from scratch >>> 3) start with an existing packer definition (e.g. [1]) >>> >>> Do you have a view on which option may be most suitable? >>> >> >> My view would be to start from scratch but of course looking at what has >> been done. >> >> In an ideal world, I would love to see a packer/vagrant file that would do: >> >> -Ubuntu and CentOS >> -Xen and KVM >> >> That way we can decide on what to build. Of course there might be issues due >> to the PV/HVM support in vbox and the OS chosen. >> I don't recall what the issue was that made Rohit use Debian (but see >> http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/), but ideally it would be good to use >> stock ubuntu 12.04 or 13.04 > > DevCloud is just an appliance that facilitates a virtual host > (hypervisor) for development with CloudStack. So, I chose Debian > because well it's the best in terms of packages, stability, security > and is usually rock solid. Ubuntu at the time had a networking issue > that did not let me use xenbr0 for use over host-only network, I did > not invest much time on it but rather switched to Debian. > > I suggest we stick to Debian as it would be least painful for anyone > IMO and the problem we're trying to solve is to enable developers have > a robust (possibly multi-vm) hypervisor host in box (vm) over a > desktop virtualization platform (virtualbox, kvm etc.) > > (IMHO -- I wonder if you've tried latest rock-solid Fedora 20, Ubuntu > should have been least recommended distro by now don't use it please). > >> I list 13.04 because there seems to be an issue with libvirt in 12.04 in the >> case that you want ceph (http://ceph.com/docs/master/rbd/rbd-cloudstack/). >> Of course ceph on a single node does not make sense, but for a devcloud3 >> setup we could imagine setting up ceph in it and use it as primary storage. > > Why not build libvirt version we want? In case we want to stay updated > I can help you with Fedora 20 based base or Arch based base for > devcloud. I've been using Fedora for some months now and I guess if > someone want latest and greatest but want to avoid a lot of sysadmin > work as with Arch Linux just go with Fedora. Linux users (new and old) > have more or less been inclined to Debian because yum-based distros > were in really bad shape few years ago and that's when like others I > shifted to using Ubuntu. But it's not the case anymore and Ubuntu has > tons of problems now and rpm-based distros deserver one shot. > >> >> I mention KVM because if one uses VMware workstation than KVM would be an >> option. >> >> What I am doing these days is taking a veewee bare definition and using >> veewee-to-packer to get started with packer. I install chef/salt/puppet >> agents in the image so that I can use the 3 of them if I want to. >> >>> If we go with option 2 or 3, do you think debian 7.0 should be used as >>> a starting point, or another version such as 7.2 or 7.3? Or even >>> another distro? > > Feel free to choose whatever distro gives us all the tools and whatnot > to solve our problem. Distros and tools are not the problem having a > host in a box for CloudStack development is the problem. > >>> >>> Are these goals still valid for devcloud3? >>> >>> - Two network interfaces, host-only adapter so that the VM is >>> reachable from host os and a NAT so VMs can access Internet. > > This I guess will be most appreciated and useful for developers, > probably first time users and for demo. Last time for some reason, I > was unable to have Internet reach VMs inside DevCloud. > >> >> Yes >> >>> - Can be used both as an all in one box solution like the original >>> DevCloud but the mgmt server and other services can run elsewhere (on >>> host os). > > This already works with last DevCloud. > >> >> Yes >> >>> - Reduce resource requirements, so one could run it in 1G limit. > > +1 though I think size is not a major issue and reduce image size is a > good to have thing. > >> >> Would be great, but remember that systemvm and ttylinux will run within it, >> so those 4 alone may use 1G >> >>> - Allow multiple DevCloud VMs hosts. > > +1 > >> >> That would be great. Having some skeleton for multiple devcloud hosts in a >> vagrant file so we can deploy "full" clouds. >> >>> - x86 dom0 and xen-i386 so it runs on all host os. >>> - Reduce exported appliance (ova) file size. >>> - It should be seamless, it should work out of the box. > > +1 > > Chris, appreciate you taking time working on this. > > Regards. > >> >> yes >> >>> >>> Are there any new requirements in addition to the ones discussed in >>> this email chain, e.g. >>> >>> - vagrant support (in addition to the ova/ovf image) >>> - packer and vagrant build environment >>> >> >> In simstack https://github.com/runseb/simstack I am trying to provide >> chef/salt/puppet recipes for the install. So in devcloud3, I would lay >> things out so that we can also do those 3 cfg mgt system in the future. Note >> that simstack is not devcloud as I am trying to run the simulator and have >> to compile from source because there is no simulator package. >> >>> >>> Many thanks, >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/opscode/bento/tree/master/packer >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Rohit Yadav <bhais...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for stepping in. That is much needed, in fact I think we should >>>>> use something like packer alongwith vagrant/veewee for both devcloud >>>>> and systemvmtemplate. Veewee can build vms, packer can export them to >>>>> various platforms/formats and a developer could use vagrant for local >>>>> devcloud/host automation. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I looked into it the other day and I agree we need to revamp this. >>>> >>>> veewee development and maintenance is going to stop. So we need to prep a >>>> packer version >>>> >>>> So yes we should create a packer definition for devcloud3 :) and be able >>>> to post-process it to vagrant. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Regards. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:30 AM, chris snow <chsnow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> I would like to build the devcloud2 image [1] from scratch using >>>>>> veewee (or packer) and turn it into a vagrant box. >>>>>> >>>>>> There seems to be several versions of Vagrant files and veewee >>>>>> definitions in the code base, making it difficult to know which one to >>>>>> start from, or whether they are still valid. >>>>>> >>>>>> Many thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Chris >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] http://bhaisaab.org/logs/devcloud/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn. >>> http://lnkd.in/cw5k69 >> -- Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn. http://lnkd.in/cw5k69
