Thought on cloud-init vs. first boot
Daniel P. Berrange
berrange at redhat.com
Wed Mar 7 17:13:00 UTC 2012
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 at fedoraproject.org> escribió:
> >>El Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:03:43 -0500
> >>Adam Young<ayoung at redhat.com> escribió:
> >>>Wanted to float this by you first before opening it to a wider
> >>>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?
> >>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.
> 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.
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
More information about the cloud