On 03/07/2012 12:13 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 11:54:05AM -0500, Adam Young wrote:
> On 03/06/2012 12:30 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>> El Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:08:22 -0600
>> Dennis Gilmore<ausil(a)fedoraproject.org> escribió:
>>> El Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:03:43 -0500
>>> Adam Young<ayoung(a)redhat.com> escribió:
>>>> Dennis,
>>>>
>>>> Wanted to float this by you first before opening it to a wider
>>>> audience.
>>>>
>>>> For fedora's VM image, we can add an additional RPM that drops a
>>>> firstboot module in with priority -1 (If that is in fact allowed,
>>>> other wise priority 0, and reschedules language to 1) that will
>>>> run cloud-init and, upon success, disable all other firstboot
>>>> modules. If it fails, firstboot runs as per normal.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>> I really don't think it will work, AFAIK cloud-init if it fails will
>>> keep trying until it succeeds because the data it needs may not be
>>> available initially. We are really too late for F17. putting in a
>>> framework to deal with it properly will take some work. I think that
>>> maybe a good solution would be to deal with it via a boot time flag.
>>> the question then becomes how exactly would it work?
>>>
>>> Id think something like this. we add the boot flag to the grub1
>>> config which is used by ec2. grub2 being unaffected. we would
>>> then need teach cloud-init which we would need to set with
>>> dependencies higher to run before firstboot would see the flag and
>>> disable firstboot. now im not 100% sure that we can actually do that.
>>> then anyone that deploys the images to an ec2 like environment like
>>> eucalyptus would need to make sure they set the flag in their grub2
>>> config for deployment.
>>>
>>> of course a lot of this is all speculation on how it all works. I
>>> think for F17 we should make 2 sets of base virt guest images. one
>>> that has cloud-init and one that has firstboot. then the user can
>>> choose which to grab.
>>>
>>> Dennis
> Agreed that cloud-init and Firstboot won't work together.
>
> Another thought is that we could modify the live CD image such that
> it can better be used as a Virtual Machine. What we have is fairly
> close to that solution already, so what it would need is:
>
> 1. An easy way to generate a Persistant store for the /var/ /home
> and /tmp directories
> 2. An easy way to resize the ISO image to something large enough to
> install/update RPMS
>
> This is obviously a pretty big stretch, and I wouldn't expect it
> could be a F17 task. It might be the wrong approach, but it would
> be worth at least talking through it.
>
> The EC2 images are pretty much "minimal" installs, right? I think
> that they should continue to be separate from the Fedora appliance
> for virtualization anyway. The appliance should be comparable to the
> Live CD: Gnome Desktop and all.
I rather disagree here - the appliance images should be JEOS images,
exactly like the EC2. For desktop users, the existing Live CD is
already a good solution.
By Desktop, we mean people running the Hypervisor on
their Desktop,
and importing Fedora Virtual machines. The Live CD does not support
that, as it still requires a full install and reboot to get the VM up
and running if you want any persistence.
Daniel