Thought on cloud-init vs. first boot
ayoung at redhat.com
Thu Mar 8 01:00:34 UTC 2012
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 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.
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.
More information about the cloud