custom (ebs backed) Fedora 14 AMIs
sgordon at redhat.com
Mon Dec 6 23:48:10 UTC 2010
On 12/07/2010 06:20 AM, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:35 AM, John Poelstra<poelstra at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Brian LaMere said the following on 12/03/2010 04:28 PM Pacific Time:
>>> Greetings all - just wanted to let you know I made a couple tweeks to
>>> the very very simple, very non-professional, non-bulletproof
>>> "createfedorabootebs.sh" script. You can find slightly longer
>>> instructions here:
>>> The steps are relatively simple.
>>> 1) create an instance from the official AMI (or anywhere else, really)
>>> 2) create a new volume, whatever size (at least 2g or so) and mount it
>>> at /dev/sdf
>>> 3) run the createfedorabootebs.sh script
>>> 4) snapshot the volume
>>> 5) register an AMI with the snapshot and the pvgrub hd0 aki
>>> It's a simple script; even a novice can tell what is going on. The
>>> sources are all from Fedora, and nothing funny is happening. This is
>>> the low-speed, "I don't know boxgrinder, I don't have a machine I can
>>> run xen on anyway, I want to know what is on the image" approach.
>>> That said, I *heartily* recommend using jforbes' AMIs instead; he'll
>>> have EBS-backed AMIs soon, I'm sure. This is only for those who want to
>>> play, or need an ebs image today. Or, if you're really crazy, it's for
>>> people who want to look at getting rawhide on ec2!
>> What are the plans and timeline for moving this function to the Fedora
>> Release Engineering team?
>> All "official Fedora content" should be produced and staged by Release
>> Engineering, and tested before release by QA too.
> We discussed this briefly at the cloud SIG meeting last week. Jared
> proposed that we do a FAD around this, probably within a few weeks of
> FUDCon. We can likely use FUDCon to hash out some of the details, and
> then hack out the implementation, plus docs and test plans, at the
> FAD. Jared was planning on mailing the list this week with some
> initial thoughts.
> Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment here: We are, in
> essence, doing for Amazon, what some other cloud providers do for us.
> Fedora 14 on Rackspace's Cloud Servers and Slicehost products, for
> example, required no intervention, or even asking from the Cloud SIG
> - they just put it up. Where do we draw the line on what should be
> produced and staged by rel-eng? Is it simply because *we* are the ones
> doing the heavy lifting with EC2, and not Amazon?
The AMIs were noted in the release notes and marketing material around
the release as a feature of the F14 release. To me they're effectively
being touted as an official release media and as such should be subject
to the same processes as the DVD or LiveCD images.
While I agree that it's great that Rackspace and Slicehost have been so
quick to get images up it's important to remember, at least in the case
of Rackspace, this is primarily down to the goodwill of one of their
employees who happens to be a Fedora enthusiast. Unfortunately we can't
rely on this being the case at every cloud provider :(.
I would however think in future we might like to make some more noise
about the presence of images we are aware of on other providers -
obviously this would be at odds with my first statement about subjecting
images to the normal rel-eng process. This is where we have a difficult
balance to strike as some providers may not even make it an option for
us to supply our own image.
The reason Amazon are able to take such a hands-off approach is that
they are seen as the biggest player in the public cloud market (rightly
or wrongly) and it feeds into that if they are the only provider we
market ourselves as available on.
FWIW I am aware I am still just shooting from the peanut gallery here, I
do still hope to be able to contribute to the Cloud Guide in the future.
>> cloud mailing list
>> cloud at lists.fedoraproject.org
> cloud mailing list
> cloud at lists.fedoraproject.org
More information about the cloud