Xen users - Dec 2011 - XCP 1.5 availability

Is there any nightly build, dev build, morning build of XCP 1.5?
I saw a message mentioning "end of September", what happened to this
release? What is the delay and what does the schedule looks like?


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

(Added xen-api list to CC.)

On 06/12/11 19:57, Enzo Lombardi wrote:
> Is there any nightly build, dev build, morning build of XCP 1.5?
> I saw a message mentioning "end of September", what happened to
this
> release? What is the delay and what does the schedule looks like?
Hi Enzo,

We had hoped for a September beta at one point, but clearly this hasn''t
happened. We''re currently aiming for a January alpha release. The
delays
have been due to our focus on Project Kronos, where we are porting the
XCP toolstack to run on Debian and Ubuntu. The core XCP team consists of
only two people, and Kronos turned out to be quite a time consuming
project. At the same time, we are still committed to providing the
traditional XCP "appliance", as well as XCP on Debian and Ubuntu.

The problem with the XCP appliance and it''s slow releases is mainly due
to our internal build system. In the past, the XCP team has had to do a
lot of manual work to convert each XenServer release into an XCP
release. Over the last year we have been tweaking our build system, and
parts of our toolstack code, to do this work for us.

The last bits of this work are almost complete. Once they are complete,
we will be able to start providing regular development snapshots of XCP,
and will be able to provide a more regular release cadence. Until this
work is complete, we don''t feel that it would be worthwhile to release
an alpha of XCP 1.5, because we know it will be broken, due to the
incompleteness of our build system and toolstack changes.

I''m sorry again for the delay to XCP 1.5. We hope that the work
we''re
doing pays off in that future releases won''t be so delayed, and
development snapshots will finally be possible. Thanks for the continued
interest in XCP.

Mike

Mike,
Project Kronos is going to be more ''actual'' than XCP? Should I
migrate from
XCP to Kronos?

Regards


On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Mike McClurg
<mike.mcclurg-Sxgqhf6Nn4DQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>wrote:
> (Added xen-api list to CC.)
>
> On 06/12/11 19:57, Enzo Lombardi wrote:
> > Is there any nightly build, dev build, morning build of XCP 1.5?
> > I saw a message mentioning "end of September", what happened
to this
> > release? What is the delay and what does the schedule looks like?
>
> Hi Enzo,
>
> We had hoped for a September beta at one point, but clearly this
hasn''t
> happened. We''re currently aiming for a January alpha release. The
delays
> have been due to our focus on Project Kronos, where we are porting the
> XCP toolstack to run on Debian and Ubuntu. The core XCP team consists of
> only two people, and Kronos turned out to be quite a time consuming
> project. At the same time, we are still committed to providing the
> traditional XCP "appliance", as well as XCP on Debian and Ubuntu.
>
> The problem with the XCP appliance and it''s slow releases is
mainly due
> to our internal build system. In the past, the XCP team has had to do a
> lot of manual work to convert each XenServer release into an XCP
> release. Over the last year we have been tweaking our build system, and
> parts of our toolstack code, to do this work for us.
>
> The last bits of this work are almost complete. Once they are complete,
> we will be able to start providing regular development snapshots of XCP,
> and will be able to provide a more regular release cadence. Until this
> work is complete, we don''t feel that it would be worthwhile to
release
> an alpha of XCP 1.5, because we know it will be broken, due to the
> incompleteness of our build system and toolstack changes.
>
> I''m sorry again for the delay to XCP 1.5. We hope that the work
we''re
> doing pays off in that future releases won''t be so delayed, and
> development snapshots will finally be possible. Thanks for the continued
> interest in XCP.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users-GuqFBffKawuULHF6PoxzQEEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>


-- 
Carlos Eduardo Tavares Terra
Red Hat Certified Engineer
Consultor em Infraestrutura de TI
GNU/Linux #413291 [http://counter.li.org]

Thank you Mike.
One more question: I am familiar with the wiki page about the differences 
between XCP and XenServer.
I was wondering if one of the feature I care will be in Boston, i.e. the 
support for GPU passthrough as exposed in XenServer.
My end goal is to consolidate in one fat box my workstation and server needs 
and GPU passthrough is required.
Looking forward for the first bits to be available, thanks for your kind 
answer
-e

-----Original Message----- 
From: Mike McClurg
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 1:29 AM
To: Enzo Lombardi
Cc: xen-users@lists.xensource.com ; xen-api@lists.xensource.com
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] XCP 1.5 availability

(Added xen-api list to CC.)

On 06/12/11 19:57, Enzo Lombardi wrote:
> Is there any nightly build, dev build, morning build of XCP 1.5?
> I saw a message mentioning "end of September", what happened to
this
> release? What is the delay and what does the schedule looks like?
Hi Enzo,

We had hoped for a September beta at one point, but clearly this hasn''t
happened. We''re currently aiming for a January alpha release. The
delays
have been due to our focus on Project Kronos, where we are porting the
XCP toolstack to run on Debian and Ubuntu. The core XCP team consists of
only two people, and Kronos turned out to be quite a time consuming
project. At the same time, we are still committed to providing the
traditional XCP "appliance", as well as XCP on Debian and Ubuntu.

The problem with the XCP appliance and it''s slow releases is mainly due
to our internal build system. In the past, the XCP team has had to do a
lot of manual work to convert each XenServer release into an XCP
release. Over the last year we have been tweaking our build system, and
parts of our toolstack code, to do this work for us.

The last bits of this work are almost complete. Once they are complete,
we will be able to start providing regular development snapshots of XCP,
and will be able to provide a more regular release cadence. Until this
work is complete, we don''t feel that it would be worthwhile to release
an alpha of XCP 1.5, because we know it will be broken, due to the
incompleteness of our build system and toolstack changes.

I''m sorry again for the delay to XCP 1.5. We hope that the work
we''re
doing pays off in that future releases won''t be so delayed, and
development snapshots will finally be possible. Thanks for the continued
interest in XCP.

Mike

On 08/12/11 20:35, Carlos Eduardo Tavares Terra wrote:
> Mike,
> Project Kronos is going to be more ''actual'' than XCP?
Should I migrate
> from XCP to Kronos?
> 
No, you should not migrate from the XCP appliance to Project Kronos,
unless you have need to do so. Project Kronos is just an alternate
delivery form for XCP. Currently, we consider it in beta form, and not
all features of XCP are supported in Kronos yet. We expect that over the
next year, the XCP appliance and XCP on Debian and Ubuntu will reach
feature parity.

The benefits of Kronos are that you have the option of keeping up with
the development version of the XCP toolstack, and you get to install it
on your distro of choice (well, as long as you choose either Debian or
Ubuntu). The benefits of the XCP appliance are that it is an easy to
install appliance, it is much closer to bit-for-bit parity with
XenServer, and as such benefits from the intense testing that Citrix
performs on XenServer.

Neither one will be "better" than the other, but each has
it''s own
distinct advantages over the other.

Mike

On 08/12/11 21:13, enzinol-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
wrote:
> Thank you Mike.
> One more question: I am familiar with the wiki page about the differences 
> between XCP and XenServer.
> I was wondering if one of the feature I care will be in Boston, i.e. the 
> support for GPU passthrough as exposed in XenServer.
> My end goal is to consolidate in one fat box my workstation and server
needs
> and GPU passthrough is required.
> Looking forward for the first bits to be available, thanks for your kind 
> answer
> -e
GPU passthrough will be included in XCP 1.5.

Mike

Thank you!
Since you mentioned Kronos, is there any doc between what to expect as 
different feature set?
-e

-----Original Message----- 
From: Mike McClurg
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 2:17 PM
To: enzinol@gmail.com
Cc: xen-users@lists.xensource.com ; xen-api@lists.xensource.com
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] XCP 1.5 availability

On 08/12/11 21:13, enzinol@gmail.com wrote:
> Thank you Mike.
> One more question: I am familiar with the wiki page about the differences
> between XCP and XenServer.
> I was wondering if one of the feature I care will be in Boston, i.e. the
> support for GPU passthrough as exposed in XenServer.
> My end goal is to consolidate in one fat box my workstation and server 
> needs
> and GPU passthrough is required.
> Looking forward for the first bits to be available, thanks for your kind
> answer
> -e
GPU passthrough will be included in XCP 1.5.

Mike

On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 09:29:04AM +0000, Mike McClurg
wrote:
> (Added xen-api list to CC.)
> 
> On 06/12/11 19:57, Enzo Lombardi wrote:
> > Is there any nightly build, dev build, morning build of XCP 1.5?
> > I saw a message mentioning "end of September", what happened
to this
> > release? What is the delay and what does the schedule looks like?
> 
> Hi Enzo,
> 
> We had hoped for a September beta at one point, but clearly this
hasn''t
> happened. We''re currently aiming for a January alpha release. The
delays
> have been due to our focus on Project Kronos, where we are porting the
> XCP toolstack to run on Debian and Ubuntu. The core XCP team consists of
> only two people, and Kronos turned out to be quite a time consuming
> project. At the same time, we are still committed to providing the
> traditional XCP "appliance", as well as XCP on Debian and Ubuntu.
> 
Hey,

I think we should use the name "XCP" only for the appliance,
and maybe just "XAPI toolstack" for the packages in Debian/Ubuntu? 

Does that make sense? Some people are getting confused about what XCP is..

> The problem with the XCP appliance and it''s slow releases is
mainly due
> to our internal build system. In the past, the XCP team has had to do a
> lot of manual work to convert each XenServer release into an XCP
> release. Over the last year we have been tweaking our build system, and
> parts of our toolstack code, to do this work for us.
> 
> The last bits of this work are almost complete. Once they are complete,
> we will be able to start providing regular development snapshots of XCP,
> and will be able to provide a more regular release cadence. Until this
> work is complete, we don''t feel that it would be worthwhile to
release
> an alpha of XCP 1.5, because we know it will be broken, due to the
> incompleteness of our build system and toolstack changes.
> 
> I''m sorry again for the delay to XCP 1.5. We hope that the work
we''re
> doing pays off in that future releases won''t be so delayed, and
> development snapshots will finally be possible. Thanks for the continued
> interest in XCP.
> 
Sounds good!

-- Pasi

On 11/12/11 19:06, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> I think we should use the name "XCP" only for the appliance,
> and maybe just "XAPI toolstack" for the packages in
Debian/Ubuntu?
> 
> Does that make sense? Some people are getting confused about what XCP is..
> 
I think that does make sense, Pasi. For the Debian packages, I think
I''d
like to call them the "XCP toolstack" packages. And for a Debian host
with the XCP toolstack installed, perhaps we should just call it a
Kronos host? I''d like the name Kronos to drop away, but it seems like
the easiest way to differentiate the two.

Does anyone else have any suggestions?

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-api-bounces-GuqFBffKawuULHF6PoxzQEEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org
[mailto:xen-api-
> bounces-GuqFBffKawuULHF6PoxzQEEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of
Mike McClurg
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:29 AM
> To: Pasi Kärkkäinen
> Cc: Enzo Lombardi;
xen-users-GuqFBffKawuULHF6PoxzQEEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org;
xen-api-GuqFBffKawuULHF6PoxzQEEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org
> Subject: Re: [Xen-API] [Xen-users] New name for Kronos? [was XCP 1.5
> availability]
>
> On 11/12/11 19:06, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > I think we should use the name "XCP" only for the appliance,
> > and maybe just "XAPI toolstack" for the packages in
Debian/Ubuntu?
> >
> > Does that make sense? Some people are getting confused about what XCP
is..
> >
>
> I think that does make sense, Pasi. For the Debian packages, I think
I''d
> like to call them the "XCP toolstack" packages. And for a Debian
host
> with the XCP toolstack installed, perhaps we should just call it a
> Kronos host? I''d like the name Kronos to drop away, but it seems
like
> the easiest way to differentiate the two.
>
> Does anyone else have any suggestions?
Mike,

I would go a single step further, and suggest that you not use the term
"XCP" at all in the context of Kronos. There''s already
pleeenty of
confusion about exactly what is what. Right now, XCP means one thing, and
I would implore you to keep it that way.

On 14/12/11 17:32, Alex Perez wrote:
> I would go a single step further, and suggest that you not use the term
> "XCP" at all in the context of Kronos. There''s already
pleeenty of
> confusion about exactly what is what. Right now, XCP means one thing, and
> I would implore you to keep it that way.
One of the biggest effects of this confusion is that people are now
worried that XCP will become completely unstable, like Fedora versus
RHEL, and thus won''t be suitable for serious enterprise deployments.

Perhaps just calling it Kronos is a good idea. Though our packaging is
nearly complete, and they are all prefixed with ''xcp-''... I
suppose we
can leave that as it is, since it is the XCP toolstack we''re
installing.
Does anyone else feel this strongly about calling it Kronos, and NOT
mentioning XCP?

Mike

On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 18:01 +0000, Mike McClurg wrote:
> On 14/12/11 17:32, Alex Perez wrote:
> > I would go a single step further, and suggest that you not use the
term
> > "XCP" at all in the context of Kronos. There''s
already pleeenty of
> > confusion about exactly what is what. Right now, XCP means one thing,
and
> > I would implore you to keep it that way.
> 
> One of the biggest effects of this confusion is that people are now
> worried that XCP will become completely unstable, like Fedora versus
> RHEL, and thus won''t be suitable for serious enterprise
deployments.
> 
> Perhaps just calling it Kronos is a good idea. Though our packaging is
> nearly complete, and they are all prefixed with ''xcp-''...
I suppose we
> can leave that as it is, since it is the XCP toolstack we''re
installing.
> Does anyone else feel this strongly about calling it Kronos, and NOT
> mentioning XCP?
I prefer it with the XCP label, though xcp-debian might be better
> 
> Mike
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xen-api mailing list
> xen-api-GuqFBffKawuULHF6PoxzQEEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-api

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 06:01:17PM +0000, Mike McClurg
wrote:
> On 14/12/11 17:32, Alex Perez wrote:
> > I would go a single step further, and suggest that you not use the
term
> > "XCP" at all in the context of Kronos. There''s
already pleeenty of
> > confusion about exactly what is what. Right now, XCP means one thing,
and
> > I would implore you to keep it that way.
> 
> One of the biggest effects of this confusion is that people are now
> worried that XCP will become completely unstable, like Fedora versus
> RHEL, and thus won''t be suitable for serious enterprise
deployments.
> 
> Perhaps just calling it Kronos is a good idea. Though our packaging is
> nearly complete, and they are all prefixed with ''xcp-''...
I suppose we
> can leave that as it is, since it is the XCP toolstack we''re
installing.
> Does anyone else feel this strongly about calling it Kronos, and NOT
> mentioning XCP?
> 
Imho, if possible, the debian/ubuntu package names should be changed,
xcp- in the deb package names will cause a lot of confusion.

xapi- is better, or kronos-, for the deb packages.

I think ''xcp'' should be used only for the .iso image
appliance..

-- Pasi

On 15/12/11 12:01, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 06:01:17PM +0000, Mike McClurg wrote:
>> On 14/12/11 17:32, Alex Perez wrote:
>>> I would go a single step further, and suggest that you not use the
term
>>> "XCP" at all in the context of Kronos. There''s
already pleeenty of
>>> confusion about exactly what is what. Right now, XCP means one
thing, and
>>> I would implore you to keep it that way.
>>
>> One of the biggest effects of this confusion is that people are now
>> worried that XCP will become completely unstable, like Fedora versus
>> RHEL, and thus won''t be suitable for serious enterprise
deployments.
>>
>> Perhaps just calling it Kronos is a good idea. Though our packaging is
>> nearly complete, and they are all prefixed with
''xcp-''... I suppose we
>> can leave that as it is, since it is the XCP toolstack we''re
installing.
>> Does anyone else feel this strongly about calling it Kronos, and NOT
>> mentioning XCP?
>>
> 
> Imho, if possible, the debian/ubuntu package names should be changed,
> xcp- in the deb package names will cause a lot of confusion.
> 
> xapi- is better, or kronos-, for the deb packages.
> 
> I think ''xcp'' should be used only for the .iso image
appliance..
> 
So, I hate to use this as an excuse, but there are actually already a
few of our Kronos packages in Debian Sid right now with the name xcp-*.
I actually think this is a good thing, because those packages are
software that came from XCP, so to me it makes sense to call the
packages xcp-blah.

How about this compromise: We call "traditional" XCP, the thing
that''s
based on CentOS and is delivered as a standalone ISO, the "XCP
Distribution". We can then call the Kronos packages, the set of software
that is installable on Debian and Ubuntu (and hopefully other distros in
the future), the "XCP Toolstack".

I think that this solution will remove some of the confusion about which
thing is which. Will this be an acceptable compromise to everyone?

Mike

At the end of the day XCP, whether in the form of a pre-packaged
appliance distribution or installed on top of a standard Linux
distribution, is more than just Xen + XAPI. It''s Xen + XAPI + xe +
Open vSwitch + (anything else needed to make it a great platform). So,
I tend to agree with Wawrzek in that there should be a meta package (a
package that has nothing in it, but depends on everything that should
be installed) called xcp-full (or xcp-system or whatever we decide).

The compromise that the packages are xcp-*, such as xcp-xapi seems OK,
since that is where they came from, but in the long run we need to
think clearly about version compatibility between xcp-xapi and any
other packaged versions of xapi that are being developed (not to imply
that xapi should be fragmented, see below). We really want to avoid
the XenCenter version mismatch issues in the future, especially when
xapi-based systems are being managed by a lot of different interfaces
OpenXenManager, OpenStack, Cloudstack, Zentific, to name a few.

Project Kronos (and that is all it should be - a project code name),
represents a great opportunity for the Xen community and I know that a
lot of people are excited about its future. There are some open
questions, but I think it is likely they will just work themselves out
just like any other open source project.

I think the use cases for xcp-full installed on a Xen dom0 via a
package install on a normal Linux distribution are clear and the
trade-offs have been discussed in some detail [1][2]. The great thing
about having the multiple different choices is one of the really great
thing about Xen. It is also perfectly reasonable for someone to build
an XCP distribution appliance based on Ubuntu or Debian or any other
distro (Citrix may even decide to use a different distro for the basis
of XenServer).

In practice, the xapi package should be the most cutting-edge version
of the API available, followed by xcp-xapi, which in practice will be
(at least currently is) the same as the XAPI version in XenServer.
Cutting-edge does not need to mean unstable, in fact I think it is
understood that regular stable versions of xapi will be available and
get integrated into XCP/XAPI-based distributions (like XCP and
XenServer) as the maintainers of those projects/products see fit.

As long as xapi remains unified, there is no fragmentation. When
working with a custom XCP, XCP itself, or XenServer the question will
be what version of XAPI is available? This will determine the feature
set available underneath. This is the way management tools like
XenCenter, CloudStack etc. *should* work. We need to move away from
relying on a specific version of XCP, XenServer, etc. and instead rely
on specific feature sets or versions of xapi itself.

I propose that at some point over the course of this year (after an
official release of Project Kronos is out the door) that we have a
XAPI/XCP hackathon. We can invite XAPI/XCP devs to it and also have a
devops-based track that proposes projects based on custom XCP(-full)
setups that may or may not need explicit help from XAPI itself. I
invite you to start brainstorming ideas, but while you do that check
out the great material that came out of the Xen Day [3] last week.
This material will inspire you to want to hack on xapi, or write
scripts for it, or create your own HA/FT solution based on DRDB and
pacemaker.

The momentum around XAPI/XCP is ours to take into the future of the
data center and the cloud. Go forth and use XCP or xcp-xapi, or choose
to get support from a vendor like Citrix and run XenServer.

...What are you going to build today?

[1] http://www.slideshare.net/deshantm/project-kronos-openstackdesignsummit
[2] http://www.slideshare.net/deshantm/why-choose-xen-for-your-cloud
[3] http://xen.org/community/xenday11.html