Hi Dennis,

So if I understand correctly, I have to sign an NDA to be able to freely upload Fedora cloud images onto GCE even for testing?

If that's the case, could you give me more information who I should contact or where should I look for more information on getting this NDA signed?

Any help is appreciated!

Thanks, Vaidas

On 22 January 2014 02:49, Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

El Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:24:31 +0000 Vaidas Jablonskis jablonskis@gmail.com escribió:

...

Hi People,

I am pretty new to contributing to Fedora, especially the cloud group.

I have mentioned a few times on IRC (nickname: zooz) that I have started working on GCE cloud image.

So I thought I will give you an update on my progress so other people can jump in or help me to figure out the process.

So far so good, GCE image does not seem to look much different that already existing OpenStack/EC2 images.

• kickstart files for appliance-creator:

https://github.com/vaijab/fedora-gce-image

• gcimagebundle spec/srpm/copr:

https://github.com/vaijab/gcimagebundle-rpm

• google-compute-daemon spec/srpm/copr:

https://github.com/vaijab/google-compute-daemon-rpm

I understand that you guys might not want to use google provided daemons for managing ssh keys, users and forwarded IP addresses, but I thought I will package it up just in case.

Current blockers: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055181 but they accepted my patch and it's been submitted to updates-testing, so it should be fine soon.

So with what I currently have, I am able to build an image without any issues which runs on GCE perfectly.

If anyone could have a quick poke at my RPM spec files and let me know if there are any major issues with them before I submit them for a review for the first time :-) Also if anyone wants to sponsor my fedora packager membership I'd really appreciate that.

So what are the next steps? How do we actually start a process of getting appliance KS files upstream?

Any pointers and feedback is welcome. If anyone wants to jump in and help - please do so!

afaik the existing images hsould work just fine, cloud-init may need some tweaking to work right. The issue we have AFAIK is that you have to sign a NDA to upload images, That is not something we are able to do. We will need to send a request to Red Hat legal via Fedora Legal to come to some agreement.

Dennis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJS3zGvAAoJEH7ltONmPFDRJkEQANIunhCTs+Dfe7KoBKt3QuZu sgY47n67YSt/Ftfo2KpSYRIMjlHslr4hF5YMjFTz2Ec5METDdTaj7iP5SwlKCmjB akWKxCeCqRua+s7k8CgSLQlyOlVigUxD2+aMIO2MD2BvGVYWos/PJuSdGJnXkJRQ QRHHKs81HkXer4vwgwWMHxj8nvlBIIgusqa4Eh9MvmIFgdvWiAkHnVo8w7xUhRWS TzIjzAXOA5mf3Lf+ZWF2xyZ9nhUuvyxpxdiCvqJ3w+1H6P5X9/WCebgXIY37tqmB 3qzBjkP6wTb+ehU+UdHxrB/s7MFn3ZRfTAwq+z2xRL4G1NfZT1Mm1yRMmxNQ9ulm Hq61LYEbTt4+2aJcLKx4muzDHxlP0jIN1LFOgz912dqlIo/UcoYKASzIbx5pJ4do yLmeiHQ73xlmwNAt38RYsJ/NgNlFriw0BNDMtr2XmkNZWe84BPRqGZHDS2cs7s9W 9NE5qRUpVEF1kaC6Aq9qqnB/YBf6ZnZKZECNY9X7cKDPS0jiWNDS6LVOFLBgaBCa hdBnX4O5LywgyNP9tEfcV1iFQQ8t1E7mPZFqg2t4Qo5uLl0IbUxM0EGDLHC7E01S WByOS1S2i+GsEPJOz0KB9GKgpgibYSj3ZZa/TIr/oaIeWy2HX/d9iuFztk1K+jNW wcoByJwVeiIWhwxQPKEr =v6Z2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Ah! Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation.

On 23 January 2014 17:09, Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Google requires you to sign an NDA, that is something that Fedora has no ability to do, it will need to be sorted out between Red Hat and Googles lawyers. As such we can not offer an official image in GCE until its sorted out.

Dennis

El Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:32:09 +0000 Vaidas Jablonskis jablonskis@gmail.com escribió:

...

Hi Dennis,

So if I understand correctly, I have to sign an NDA to be able to freely upload Fedora cloud images onto GCE even for testing?

If that's the case, could you give me more information who I should contact or where should I look for more information on getting this NDA signed?

Any help is appreciated!

Thanks, Vaidas

On 22 January 2014 02:49, Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

El Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:24:31 +0000 Vaidas Jablonskis jablonskis@gmail.com escribió:

...

Hi People,

I am pretty new to contributing to Fedora, especially the cloud group.

I have mentioned a few times on IRC (nickname: zooz) that I have started working on GCE cloud image.

So I thought I will give you an update on my progress so other people can jump in or help me to figure out the process.

So far so good, GCE image does not seem to look much different that already existing OpenStack/EC2 images.

• kickstart files for appliance-creator:

https://github.com/vaijab/fedora-gce-image

• gcimagebundle spec/srpm/copr:

https://github.com/vaijab/gcimagebundle-rpm

• google-compute-daemon spec/srpm/copr:

https://github.com/vaijab/google-compute-daemon-rpm

I understand that you guys might not want to use google provided daemons for managing ssh keys, users and forwarded IP addresses, but I thought I will package it up just in case.

Current blockers: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055181 but they accepted my patch and it's been submitted to updates-testing, so it should be fine soon.

So with what I currently have, I am able to build an image without any issues which runs on GCE perfectly.

If anyone could have a quick poke at my RPM spec files and let me know if there are any major issues with them before I submit them for a review for the first time :-) Also if anyone wants to sponsor my fedora packager membership I'd really appreciate that.

So what are the next steps? How do we actually start a process of getting appliance KS files upstream?

Any pointers and feedback is welcome. If anyone wants to jump in and help - please do so!

afaik the existing images hsould work just fine, cloud-init may need some tweaking to work right. The issue we have AFAIK is that you have to sign a NDA to upload images, That is not something we are able to do. We will need to send a request to Red Hat legal via Fedora Legal to come to some agreement.

Dennis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJS3zGvAAoJEH7ltONmPFDRJkEQANIunhCTs+Dfe7KoBKt3QuZu sgY47n67YSt/Ftfo2KpSYRIMjlHslr4hF5YMjFTz2Ec5METDdTaj7iP5SwlKCmjB akWKxCeCqRua+s7k8CgSLQlyOlVigUxD2+aMIO2MD2BvGVYWos/PJuSdGJnXkJRQ QRHHKs81HkXer4vwgwWMHxj8nvlBIIgusqa4Eh9MvmIFgdvWiAkHnVo8w7xUhRWS TzIjzAXOA5mf3Lf+ZWF2xyZ9nhUuvyxpxdiCvqJ3w+1H6P5X9/WCebgXIY37tqmB 3qzBjkP6wTb+ehU+UdHxrB/s7MFn3ZRfTAwq+z2xRL4G1NfZT1Mm1yRMmxNQ9ulm Hq61LYEbTt4+2aJcLKx4muzDHxlP0jIN1LFOgz912dqlIo/UcoYKASzIbx5pJ4do yLmeiHQ73xlmwNAt38RYsJ/NgNlFriw0BNDMtr2XmkNZWe84BPRqGZHDS2cs7s9W 9NE5qRUpVEF1kaC6Aq9qqnB/YBf6ZnZKZECNY9X7cKDPS0jiWNDS6LVOFLBgaBCa hdBnX4O5LywgyNP9tEfcV1iFQQ8t1E7mPZFqg2t4Qo5uLl0IbUxM0EGDLHC7E01S WByOS1S2i+GsEPJOz0KB9GKgpgibYSj3ZZa/TIr/oaIeWy2HX/d9iuFztk1K+jNW wcoByJwVeiIWhwxQPKEr =v6Z2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJS4UzbAAoJEH7ltONmPFDR+ZsQAIc5tYjpKBpXwiiabNXJrnYY 0Z7PTs7GyJr/y6lpC6mX4YXJN7bQQcuoNCj6i+mzsiVo9Rpwm4NY/o33ctGPnu/p A21G5BZkpiRpFHeWWifK9JV8EBNyg2FJEyKgEwruDjZNKaHa5TxIjzkrGT8hHNvM 0ypZZa4E6f7EBlrne3Bje6iwBABWfSzNRQtB+EdWEYqgNZ2t9RjddPcN7MsK02g2 7dpCwKn3UuRVSm1onZMETGhNsttI6NNbaps/TwOKe+3eCj10Bs2GbFaMDGOwedO1 Rj/HK08MqZo1rJEwuuPeWcA9fVcHVpINt6zQKOz4vRcHkAYUuyHTGy77oNhv1Ys5 ofMZLnUaaPbtTEL/ZK7VCk+d2uCOtnULP64cleN9HMcFMyQ76w2tE5s46k/ArTGR HCLUeOpl9N1UVPpl+YeweIVCekIYnReJSw4aWyBrC3lvv9qoTtCq5TolqOjAcx84 ZkEITvky0KgAAZhao596iCz056UkbfyhVTvRGxIMhQyC7chvP+kbMJvp25coAw0w zoxPeSxfSuAhxYiI3GxT4klOVv+i//2DbWXJ+1aMbIqbRPXLXMyJEipfTRBHJqtJ U0ZK/ai0uky9uanMDoFjc3HPJ7OYgdreXcfCjfjcGaXFRVqHvuNhItv/b+KSef+Y H12xSDB4Sh2sYK9+Ybv8 =HC3H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Hello folks,

It's been a while since I updated the list on my progress, I have been busy lately with other things.

The previous blocker which was a bug in dhclient is fixed now and is in fedora-updates repo. The existing kickstart files which are used to build fedora cloud images can be used for GCE as well without any modification.

Since everybody voted up for cloud-init for initial GCE instance setup, I wrote cloud-init data source for GCE metadata. The only thing it does not do yet is read user-data from GCE metadata API, because GCE does not distinguish between key:value attributes, they are all the same from their point of view which is not the case from cloud-init point of view. I noticed that cloud-init is very much EC2-focused.

Should I assume that people will create a GCE metadata attribute called 'user-data' if they want to get cloud-init to setup their instance initially?

Another issue with cloud-init is that EC2 data source takes ages to run on non EC2 cloud providers with default configuration. By default it is one of the first ones to run when instance starts. Default config for EC2 data sources tells cloud-init to retry 240 times, which is roughly about 3-4 minutes.

Which brings me to another question - should we have a specific kickstart snippet for GCE and potentially for other clouds which just changes default cloud-init config (enables/disables cloud-init data sources) based on what kind of cloud image that is?

Any ideas / comments are welcome. I will paste the code later today for people review it.

Thanks, Vaidas

On 23 January 2014 18:17, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:09:43AM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:

...

Google requires you to sign an NDA, that is something that Fedora has no ability to do, it will need to be sorted out between Red Hat and Googles lawyers. As such we can not offer an official image in GCE until its sorted out.

It's my understanding (from Sam) that this *is* sorted out.

-- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- mattdm@fedoraproject.org _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Submitted to Canonical, will update on the progress.

On 1 February 2014 11:28, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:11:41AM +0000, Vaidas Jablonskis wrote:

...

Since everybody voted up for cloud-init for initial GCE instance setup, I wrote cloud-init data source for GCE metadata. The only thing it does not

That is awesome! Thanks for doing this.

...

Should I assume that people will create a GCE metadata attribute called 'user-data' if they want to get cloud-init to setup their instance initially?

I think this is probably a good discussion for cloud-init upstream. I think the important thing will be consistent.

...

Which brings me to another question - should we have a specific kickstart snippet for GCE and potentially for other clouds which just changes

default

...

cloud-init config (enables/disables cloud-init data sources) based on

what

...

kind of cloud image that is?

So far, we've tried to keep the images identical no matter the target cloud. That has some value if we can keep it up, we can also look at targetting specific environments separately too if it gains us something greater than that value.

-- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- mattdm@fedoraproject.org _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 09:03:47PM +0000, Vaidas Jablonskis wrote:

So there is not much to update on the GCE image. I wrote the GCE data source support for cloud-init and Canonical accepted it upstream, so if Fedora decides to use cloud-init, the support for Google Compute Engine is there already.

Cool. Quick question -- are you using instance/attributes/user-data for the user data script? I assume so but want to check (since Google doesn't define this specially.)

It would be very nice to have Google Cloud tools packaged natively for Fedora, those are gcutil, gcloud and gsutil. Do you know if anyone wants to work on that or do you think GCE tools aren't necessary?

Haïkel Guémar (aka number80) was looking at these... I'm not sure of the current state.

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:41:14PM +0000, Vaidas Jablonskis wrote:

user-data is used if it is present. I discussed with cloud-init authors and we decided to use same convention for `user-data` as EC2 even though Google themselves do not promote this.

See lines 55 to 61 for what attributes are supported: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~cloud-init-dev/cloud-init/trunk/view/head:/clou...

Perfect, thanks.

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Michael Hall mike@mjhall.org wrote:

Awesome work Vaidas!

I am keen to test the KS file, but unfortunately am moving house tomorrow and will not be doing much Fedora for maybe two weeks.

For what it's worth I have just joined Git and uploaded a first attempt at defining a leaner Fedora 20 kernel:

https://github.com/mjhall/fedora-gce-kernel

Looking forward to getting back into this!

The Fedora kernel team would really like to maintain a single kernel (vmlinux) that is used across the products. That will lead to some unnecessary things in all of them, but the maintenance burden is greatly reduced if there is a single vmlinux to triage. We're looking at splitting up the kernel packaging to make the RPM itself smaller to help with overall image size.

That being said, if you have found options that can be made modular or that you think are no longer needed by anything, please let us know. We're always willing to review config settings.

josh

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy kchamart@redhat.com wrote:

On 01/22/2014 06:04 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:

...

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Michael Hall mike@mjhall.org wrote:

...

Awesome work Vaidas!

I am keen to test the KS file, but unfortunately am moving house tomorrow and will not be doing much Fedora for maybe two weeks.

For what it's worth I have just joined Git and uploaded a first attempt at defining a leaner Fedora 20 kernel:

https://github.com/mjhall/fedora-gce-kernel

Looking forward to getting back into this!

The Fedora kernel team would really like to maintain a single kernel (vmlinux) that is used across the products. That will lead to some unnecessary things in all of them, but the maintenance burden is greatly reduced if there is a single vmlinux to triage. We're looking at splitting up the kernel packaging to make the RPM itself smaller to help with overall image size.

That's really nice, Josh. Is this effort being tracked somewhere, I'd like to keep myself updated on it & contribute in any little way I can, as I'm testing nested virt w/ minimal possible kernels on L0, L1 & L2.

Mostly on the kernel list and on this list. At the moment, I'm waiting for Matt and Sam to tell me what "smaller" should actually included.

josh