[CentOS-virt] RE: [CentOS] error creating CentOS 5.1 x32
domUinstance on CentOS 5.1 x64
Ross S. W. Walker
rwalker at medallion.com
Mon Mar 3 01:53:31 UTC 2008
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> >Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> < -- snip -- >
> >> You meant this?
> >> [root at gimbli ~]# more /etc/xen/vm03
> >> name = "vm03"
> >> uuid = "cc3b0b01-7894-4ac2-06e6-a1a1307939fc"
> >> maxmem = 512
> >> memory = 512
> >> vcpus = 1
> >> bootloader = "/usr/bin/pygrub"
> >> on_poweroff = "destroy"
> >> on_reboot = "restart"
> >> on_crash = "restart"
> >> vfb = [ ]
> >> disk = [ "tap:aio:/home/vm/vm03.img,xvda,w" ]
> >> vif = [ "mac=00:16:3e:0a:13:9d,bridge=xenbr0" ]
> > Yes, it's a little lighter then I am use to, but it appears functional.
> > I typically use an example config from /etc/xen and then change the
> > appropriate parts for my VM and if necessary make sure the defines
> > are up to date.
> > Here's a Xen 3.2 PV config:
<snip config found in /etc/xen>
> > So there are lots of options you can configure that aren't available
> > through virt-install. You don't need to use virt-install either, that
> > is a separate Xen management framework (actually general VM management
> > framework for Xen and KVM).
> > You could just do:
> > # xm create <config file>
> > On Xen 3.2, I add the VM directly into the xenstore with:
> > # xm new <config file>
> > Then the VM appears on xm list, and can be started stopped paused and
> > is always able to query through the Xen API from third party management
> > tools.
> > # xm start <vm name>
> > # xm pause <vm name>
> > # xm resume <vm name>
> > # xm shutdown <vm name>
> I'd prefer to the virt-install, as I can automate the VM
> creation from a script if I can get it to work.
Well I think you can script Xen through python and the
Xen API, much the way virt-install does, but with infinitely
Most of the time though you probably won't be scripting, but
templating VMs. You will get a few default general configs
for different OS types and combine them maybe with base
image snapshots and use those to deploy new VMs.
<snip lengthy talk on Xen setup>
> >> Ross, you're talking about "scary" new stuff which I haven't even though
> >> about.
> > True, once it's done once it isn't as scary as it first seems though.
> >> - What I'd like to accomplish, is to have a few dedicated servers (Our
> >> company is the hosting company, and this is the first time we go into
> >> virtualization ), each running up to say 10 VPS / VM's (which is much
> >> cheaper than a full blown dedi to the client)
> >> None of the servers have X (no point to it), and we use a very, very
> >> minimal install (I don't even have FTP running, since cPanel will
> >> provide this). The VPS's will either have 256MB (cPanel minimum) / 512 /
> >> 786 / 1GB RAM - Obviously if more RAM is desired per VPS, less will be
> >> run on 1 server, or the server will have more RAM & CPU's HDD space will
> >> also either be 10 / 20 / 40 / 60 GB per VPS. The VPS' itself will only
> >> run cPanel, no X - a server doesn't need X for anything. So, 10 VPS with
> >> 512MB each = 12GB needed on host server. Many Xeon mobo's can take upto
> >> 32GB RAM.
> > Yes there is no problem there, and if you have multiple Xen servers
> > using shared backend storage you can migrate VMs between the Xen
> > servers on a resource needed basis.
> >> - I'm a bit sceptic about using Xen 3.2 off the Xen site, as I don't
> >> know how well it'll perform on CentOS and I believe that if CentOS
> >> hasn't included in their repositories yet, then there must be a good
> >> reason. I'll test it on a test server though to see what happens. I
> >> think the other problem I have, is that these servers are deployed from
> >> the standard CentOS 5.1 CD & a kickstart file with only the necessary
> >> software & nothing more. Having to compile software on another machine
> >> isn't fun for me.
> > Well here's a clue. Xen Enterprise server uses CentOS as the OS for
> > dom0. I believe they still use CentOS 4.X (maybe the latest uses 5.X)
> > and the Xen 3.2 package was built on CentOS. Xen 3.2 performs very
> > very well on CentOS 5.X (some say even better then the Xen shipping
> > with CentOS).
> > At my site I have setup a site specific repository for all in-house
> > compiled RPMs and I have my kickstarts add the repo with a higher
> > priority then the base/updates/extras repos for CentOS. Then I run
> > a 'yum update' and my Xen 3.2 packages replace the CentOS ones on
> > install and are there after updated from my internal repo.
> Xen Enterprise is a bit out of my budget, maybe later on when our VPS
> project takes off well will we look into it.
Well $1600/socket can be a lot or a little depending on what your use
to, but you can start with the CentOS 5.1 + Xen 3.2 and always migrate
over to Xen Enterprise later.
> >> - I just want to understand this better. If I run a 64bit host, and want
> >> to install any other guest (preferably 32bit), then I need to use the
> >> "fully virtualized guest" and not the para-virtualized option, right?
> > No, with Xen 3.1 and 3.2 a 64-bit Xen host can run:
> > 32-bit PVM
> > 32-bit PAE PVM
> > 32-bit HVM
> > 64-bit PVM
> > 64-bit HVM
> > There have been reports that the CentOS version has problems with
> > 32-bit PVM guests on 64-bit hosts. I don't know if they have all
> > been resolved, but this should fully work on Xen 3.2.
> Am I understanding correctly that I'm trying to install a 32-bit PVM?
> Cause then it should work?
Yes, 32-bit PVM should work fine on 64-bit CentOS 5.1 host. It has to
be 5.1 or later though because 5.0 didn't support this, but support
is even tighter on Xen 3.2 for this setup.
> >> - I like where you're heading with the suggestion of an iSCSI SAN, but
> >> that's totally new to me as well, and not in my budget right now. Maybe
> >> later on when this whole project takes off as I hope for it to take off.
> >> But, since you mention it, do you then setup the server with a base OS,
> >> and mount the iSCSI SAN as added storage? And then all the VM's get's
> >> stored on the SAN, instead of the server's HDD's? And how well will such
> >> a setup perform if I have say 5 / 10 servers connected to it? I guess
> >> the SAN will then at least need 4 Gigabit NIC's, as the hubs in the DC
> >> are only 100Mbit hubs. For a startup SAN, what would you suggest? I
> >> guess a PC / server based SAN (in other words, I take a Xeon mobo with
> >> plenty of HDD ports and put plenty HDD's on it) isn't really
> >> an option?
> > Yes, the VM's disks are located on the SAN and either mounted on the
> > Xen host and booted off them, or the Xen VM's do an iSCSI boot
> > directly off the SAN. There are a myriad of ways of doing this and
> > it will depend on the VMs and Xen desired configuration.
> > I run approximately 16 virtual guests off a single iSCSI server and
> > the performance is very good. Of course I have the disk array setup
> > as a RAID-10 for the VM's as 90% of all disk access will be random
> > across the OS disks. I have a separate iSCSI server that provides
> > the application data storage with different array types based on
> > the storage.
> With 16 VPS's (depending on the RAM & HDD space), surely I can just run
> them directly on the dedi instead? I'm not planning on using more than
> 1GB RAM & 60 GB HDD space per VM. The servers will probably have upto
> 1.5TB RAID-10 HDD space, which will work fine for 14x60GB = 960GB.
> Although some people recommend not more than 6 VPS's per CPU kernel, so
> on the current Core 2 Duo I can only do 12 VPS's max, or 16 easily on a
> Core 2 Quad + 16 - 32GB RAM
16 on a Quad should work if their load is low, if you have 4 or
more with a heavy load then you may want to get more sockets or
spread them over multiple servers.
> > Currently we have used the iSCSI Enterprise Target software from
> > sourceforge to provide cheap iSCSI and we are graduating to an
> > appliance based solution soon. The appliance costs from Dell
> > have dropped to a thin margin over the costs of the raw disks, so
> > there isn't much cost factor any more. Talking around 20K for 15
> > 146GB 15K SAS disks iSCSI array where once it was around 80-90K.
> SCSI drives are still rather expensive in our country, but SATAII drives
> are rather cheap, but I'll look into SCSI to see how cost effective it
> could be
SCSI drives are still more expensive then their SATA counterparts in
iSCSI doesn't have to use SCSI drives though. Any backend storage
can be served up over iSCSI, even RAM disks if so desired.
> > Of course with the iSCSI Enterprise Target you can start simple
> > with SATA and a cheap array. Then gradually evolve it to more
> > and more complex/expensive setups as the need grows.
> Thanx, I'll take a look @ iSCSI Enterprise Target, although I've been
> thinking about using FreeN(http://www.freenas.org/) for this
> purpose though
I try to stay away from NAS for block-level storage as it can cause
all sorts of hard to diagnose performance problems. It just was never
designed to handle virtual machines, databases and such.
> >> For now I'm going to manage the Xen stuff myself, I don't have anyone
> >> capable of doing this kind of work yet.
> > Plan it out carefully, ask advice on this list and the Xen list
> > and you should be able to put together an effective setup very
> > economically.
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto,
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the
original and any copy or printout thereof.
More information about the CentOS-virt