g to do this individually on each VR deployed.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemne...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 29 January 2015 22:17
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] we need a better SSVM solution
> >
d
other value-add services through additional software packages without having to
do this individually on each VR deployed.
-Original Message-
From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemne...@gmail.com]
Sent: 29 January 2015 22:17
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] we need a better SSVM so
> console proxy and secondary storage template b. the virtual router/
>> > VPC template.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Paul Angus
>> > Cloud Architect
>> > S: +44 20 3603 0540 | M: +447711418784 | T: CloudyAngus
software packages without
having to do this individually on each VR deployed.
-Original Message-
From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemne...@gmail.com]
Sent: 29 January 2015 22:17
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] we need a better SSVM solution
Pauls suggestion reminds me of some awe
> > paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Kinsella [mailto:j...@stratosec.co]
> > Sent: 29 January 2015 18:06
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] we need a better SSVM solution
> >
> > Interesting…
>
ssage-
> From: John Kinsella [mailto:j...@stratosec.co]
> Sent: 29 January 2015 18:06
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] we need a better SSVM solution
>
> Interesting…
>
> Concur on having an open/standardized protocol. Something clustered lik
-Original Message-
From: John Kinsella [mailto:j...@stratosec.co]
Sent: 29 January 2015 18:06
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] we need a better SSVM solution
Interesting…
Concur on having an open/standardized protocol. Something clustered like
Serf/Consul could be
Interesting…
Concur on having an open/standardized protocol. Something clustered like
Serf/Consul could be attractive, but the overhead/requirements of those type of
things usually scares me away.
Having ACS act as a CA would be quite interesting for some things. It’s one of
the reasons I’ve p
deleted.
Andrei
- Original Message -
> From: "Daan Hoogland"
> To: "dev"
> Sent: Thursday, 29 January, 2015 10:52:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] we need a better SSVM solution
> I don't like the puppet/chef idea but at Schuberg Philis we use
> ans
I don't like the puppet/chef idea but at Schuberg Philis we use
ansible which negates most of my opposition :p
I would rather have a 'upload or sysvmtemplate' the system vm template
has some requirements so I think we would either require it to be
build (on the ms?) or be checked during upload. At
Good ideas John.
I’m in fact already discussing a design I’m calling it "agents framework”
(suggestions for better name are welcome!), I will try to share and update the
spec soon that aims for this feature and refactoring work for ACS 4.6/master.
For now, I’ve shared an architecture diagram he
+1
some trivial cases:
When user upload a template , add option or tags to identify the template is
SystemVm template .
Allow user have their own custom "SystemVm Service Offering " , in which has an
option for user assign/choice systemvm template .
--
Regards,
ChunFe
+1 !
On Jan 28, 2015 10:01 PM, "Erik Weber" wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:44 PM, John Kinsella wrote:
>
> > Every time there’s an issue (security or otherwise) with the system VM
> > ISOs, it’s a relative pain to fix. They’re sort of a closed system,
> people
> > know little (relative to ot
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:44 PM, John Kinsella wrote:
> Every time there’s an issue (security or otherwise) with the system VM
> ISOs, it’s a relative pain to fix. They’re sort of a closed system, people
> know little (relative to other ACS parts, IMHO) about their innards, and
> updating them is
14 matches
Mail list logo
