Re: CloudStack NoVNC solution in Leaseweb

[Wei ZHOU]

Hi Fariborz,

It is good to know you are interested.

We will create a pull request for 4.11.2 LTS in the next weeks.

-Wei


Fariborz Navidan  于2019年4月4日周四 上午10:29写道：

> Hello,
>
> It's a great and valuable job because we have already observed that noVNC
> integrated into control panels such as Virtualizor has great speed and
> efficiency in comparison with CloudStack's native console proxy
> implementation. Especially noVNC is more comfortable when user is on on a
> low speed or high latency internet connection.
>
> We were looking forward to investigate current CPVM and try to integrate
> noVNC. It's pleasure to us that this has already been implemented and hope
> we can take advantage of it in near future.
>
> Best regards
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:34 PM Wei ZHOU  wrote:
>
> > Hello CloudStack developers and users,
> >
> > We (as leaseweb) would like to share our NoVNC solution on our cloudstack
> > platforms with the CloudStack community . The feature was implemented in
> > 2012 and we have made some changes since that. We have used it for more
> > than 7 years and it is very stable.
> >
> > Unlike the pull request submitted by sachinnitw1317 (
> > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2204 ) ,which is based on the
> > novnc as the front end (different from the cloudstack) and the java
> > websocket proxy (same as cloudstack) in console proxy vm (cpvm), we use
> > modified novnc and websockify to launch a websockify proxy in cpvm .
> >
> > Here are some technical details:
> >
> > (1) We use two open source projects: noVNC (
> https://github.com/novnc/noVNC
> > , 0.6.2) and websockify (https://github.com/novnc/websockify ,latest)
> > (2) We modified websockify so we can launch it without the target
> > server/port and token.
> > (3) We reuse the 'path' in novnc and websockify to pass some necessary vm
> > informations from cloudstack to novnc and websockify. path is encrypted
> in
> > cpvm / java, which contains target server,target port, vnc password,
> client
> > ip and timestamp. When a new client comes, websockify will decrypt 'path'
> > to get the vm informations above, and check if the client ip matches and
> > the timestamp has not expired.
> > (4) We moved the server/client initialization from novnc(js) to
> > websockify(python). When a new client comes, websockify will create a
> > websocket connection to the target server and port ,then check the
> protocol
> > version and authentication scheme, use the password in step (3) in vnc
> > authentication .
> > (5) Add a global setting in cloudstack for encryption in java and
> > decryption in websockify.
> >
> > Compared to the cloudstack native console (ajax/java websocket proxy) and
> > the novnc console purposed in PR 2204 (novnc /java websocket proxy) , we
> > believe that the novnc console based on websockifty (written in python)
> is
> > more efficient than the consoles based on java websocket proxy.
> >
> > If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask. If nobody
> > objects, we will port our changes to cloudstack 4.11.2 LTS and submit a
> > pull request on cloudstack github, so everyone who is interested can
> merge
> > and build it in his/her fork and test it .
> >
> > Considering that novnc and websockify are both open source projects, and
> we
> > also use some open source code (such as in pyDes.py VNC password
> > authentication) , it would be appreciated if anyone can help us on
> software
> > licensing issues.
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Wei Zhou
> > Principal Cloud Engineer
> > LEASEWEB
> >
>

Re: CloudStack NoVNC solution in Leaseweb

[Sven Vogel]

Hi Wei Zhou,

That would be great.

Thanks for that!

Greetings

Sven


__

Sven Vogel
Teamlead Platform

EWERK RZ GmbH
Br?hl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
P +49 341 42649 - 11
F +49 341 42649 - 18
s.vo...@ewerk.com
www.ewerk.com

Gesch?ftsf?hrer:
Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Frank Richter, Gerhard Hoyer
Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 17023

Zertifiziert nach:
ISO/IEC 27001:2013
DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
DIN ISO/IEC 2-1:2011

EWERK-Blog | 
LinkedIn | 
Xing | 
Twitter | 
Facebook

Ausk?nfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.

Disclaimer Privacy:
Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschlie?lich etwaiger beigef?gter Dateien) ist 
vertraulich und nur f?r den Empf?nger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht der 
bestimmungsgem??e Empf?nger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung, 
Vervielf?ltigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte 
informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverz?glich den Absender und l?schen Sie die 
E-Mail (einschlie?lich etwaiger beigef?gter Dateien) von Ihrem System. Vielen 
Dank.

The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential and 
may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this 
e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is 
strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and 
then delete it (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.

Am 04.04.2019 um 13:06 schrieb Rohit Yadav 
mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com>>:

012 and we have made some changes since that. We have used it for more
than 7 years and it is very stable.

[DISCUSS] travis tests

[Daan Hoogland]

LS,
Lately travis tests show more and more random failures. somtimes these
succeed on stuborn retry but lately these are getting more persistent.
Especially job .7 is hard to get past/passed. I am very irritated and
looking for ways to resolve this without just ignoring.
Is there anybody here that has a clear view on shat is happening? I heard
say ubuntu verion and travis traffic increasing.
Does anybody know if splitting the runs further is possible and/or useful?

thanks and kind regards,
-- 
Daan

Re: [DISCUSS] travis tests

[Rafael Weingärtner]

It is probably a concurrency problem on the test side.
I had a similar problem a long time ago with "*smoke*/*test_primary_storage*".
That is one of the reasons why this test is there on its own.

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 8:54 AM Daan Hoogland 
wrote:

> LS,
> Lately travis tests show more and more random failures. somtimes these
> succeed on stuborn retry but lately these are getting more persistent.
> Especially job .7 is hard to get past/passed. I am very irritated and
> looking for ways to resolve this without just ignoring.
> Is there anybody here that has a clear view on shat is happening? I heard
> say ubuntu verion and travis traffic increasing.
> Does anybody know if splitting the runs further is possible and/or useful?
>
> thanks and kind regards,
> --
> Daan
>


-- 
Rafael Weingärtner