[ec2] Ec2-beta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 32
Kyle Dobbs
kyle.dobbs at gmail.com
Sun Jun 7 15:21:37 BST 2009
unsubscribe
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:37 AM, <ec2-beta-request at lists.ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Send Ec2-beta mailing list submissions to
> ec2-beta at lists.ubuntu.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ec2-beta
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ec2-beta-request at lists.ubuntu.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ec2-beta-owner at lists.ubuntu.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Ec2-beta digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: init level 2-4 + network access (Darren Govoni)
> 2. Re: ec2-attach-volume? (John Hampton)
> 3. Re: ec2-attach-volume? (Jason)
> 4. Re: ec2-attach-volume? (Aaron Nall)
> 5. Re: ec2 concepts and understanding (Thomas Butter)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:38:10 -0400
> From: Darren Govoni <darren at ontrenet.com>
> Subject: Re: [ec2-beta] init level 2-4 + network access
> To: Eric Hammond <ehammond at thinksome.com>
> Cc: ec2-beta at lists.ubuntu.com
> Message-ID: <1238467090.7201.46.camel at nuraku>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Yeah, good point. After looking at your perl snippet I understand what
> its doing now. Thanks again.
>
> On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 18:17 -0700, Eric Hammond wrote:
> > Darren:
> >
> > A sleep simply reduces the risk of failure but does not eliminate it.
> > Plus, you may be waiting longer than necessary in many cases.
> >
> > Why not explicitly wait for the network to come up so that you both
> > eliminate the risk and speed up the process?
> >
> > --
> > Eric Hammond
> > ehammond at thinksome.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Darren Govoni wrote:
> > > Eric,
> > > That's an interesting idea about the boot speed (which is lightening
> > > fast). Let me see about that, maybe putting a sleep in my script above
> > > the svn call. I went back to beta1 since, but really need to keep up
> > > with the program.
> > >
> > > I'll report back and thank you again for the tip.
> > >
> > > Darren
> > >
> > > On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 03:25 -0700, Eric Hammond wrote:
> > >> Darren:
> > >>
> > >> Did you ever solve this issue?
> > >>
> > >> If your scripts are being run from /etc/rc*.d/ (or symlinks there)
> then
> > >> they are run as root. The order in which they are run relative to
> > >> network setup depends partly on the names of the files or symlinks in
> > >> that directory and partly on how fast DHCP resolves.
> > >>
> > >> In the Ubuntu images I publish on http://alestic.com I found they
> booted
> > >> so fast that I needed to put in some checks to wait for the network to
> > >> come up (DHCP). I did this using a command like the following (only
> > >> works on EC2):
> > >>
> > >> perl -MIO::Socket::INET -e '
> > >> until(new IO::Socket::INET("169.254.169.254:80")){sleep 1}'
> > >>
> > >> I have a suggested ticket open in launchpad for the official images:
> > >>
> > >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-on-ec2/+bug/308530
> > >>
> > >> Each process requiring network will need to implement its own check.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Eric Hammond
> > >> ehammond at thinksome.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Darren Govoni wrote:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>> In beta 1 I had some init scripts I wrote that pulled updates from
> a
> > >>> subversion server outside of EC2. In beta2 those scripts don't quite
> > >>> work entirely. After adding some logging, they seem to get hung or
> bail
> > >>> out on svn calls that attempt network access. That is, they run up to
> > >>> that point.
> > >>>
> > >>> So my question is, is there any network constraints at init 2 that
> would
> > >>> prevent my script from working?
> > >>>
> > >>> I will dare to also ask if they run as root like before, which I
> think
> > >>> my scripts require at boot time.
> > >>>
> > >>> Warm regards,
> > >>> Darren
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:23:47 -0700
> From: John Hampton <john at cleanoffer.com>
> Subject: Re: [ec2-beta] ec2-attach-volume?
> To: Eric Hammond <ehammond at thinksome.com>
> Cc: ec2-beta at lists.ubuntu.com, Chuck Short <chuck.short at canonical.com>
> Message-ID:
> <6385de9b0903302023w382f3dd7xd63b809170bb7e05 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> +1 on not installing the ami tools. I'd rather have a bare instance and let
> me configure it the way that I want.
> JH
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Eric Hammond <ehammond at thinksome.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > There are also some good reasons *not* to install the ec2-api-tools by
> > default.
> >
> > It looks to me like it will add over 150 MB to the disk footprint of the
> > AMI. This will increase the load time of the image from S3, increasing
> > instance startup time on EC2.
> >
> > In my experience and testing, the size of the image is the primary
> > factor in determining instance startup time (though Amazon's image
> > caching can also have an effect in some cases).
> >
> > The API tools require Java, so that would need to be installed on the
> > image. I'm not sure everybody will want the same version of Java
> > installed on their instances.
> >
> > Based on the last time I tested them (months ago), the API tools require
> > Sun's version of Java. In order for this to be installed, you must
> > accept Sun's license. I was not comfortable doing that when building
> > public EC2 images as I would, in theory, be accepting the license for
> > every person who runs those images or be forced to have them accept the
> > license before running it.
> >
> > Since we don't know many folks are going to want to use the API tools on
> > their EC2 instances (rare in my case), I think the above negatives
> > outweigh the benefits.
> >
> > My belief is that the server image should be as minimal as possible, not
> > providing lots of extra tools just in case folks need them, especially
> > since many EC2 use cases require running lots of instances where startup
> > time matters.
> >
> > I do vote for making it easy to install the API tools on an Ubuntu
> > instance for folks who want to do this. It sounds like progress is
> > being made in that direction.
> >
> > --
> > Eric Hammond
> > ehammond at thinksome.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Chuck Short wrote:
> > > Yes there is a good case to install the ec2-api-tools by default.
> Amazon
> > > has recently updated the license so we can distribute it the archive. I
> > > have already packaged it for ubuntu and it will be included in the next
> > > beta.
> > >
> > >
> > > chuck
> > >
> > > Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> > >> Eric Hammond wrote:
> > >>> The official Ubuntu beta2 images for EC2 have the EC2 AMI command
> line
> > >>> tools installed, but not the EC2 API command line tools.
> > >>>
> > >>> ec2-attach-volume is part of the API tools, so you would need to
> > install
> > >>> them if you want to use this command on the EC2 instance.
> > >>>
> > >> Is there a good case for having the API tools installed by default?
> > >>
> > >> Mark
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Ec2-beta mailing list
> > Ec2-beta at lists.ubuntu.com
> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ec2-beta
> >
>
>
>
> --
> John O. Hampton, Jr., CTO
> CleanOffer, Inc.
> 101 California Street
> Suite 2450 #612
> San Francisco, CA 94111
>
> Homepage: http://www.cleanoffer.com
> Blog: http://blog.cleanoffer.com
>
> (415) 240-4532 (office)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/private/ec2-beta/attachments/20090330/7ecb6b42/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:27:33 -0700
> From: Jason <jm at onisland.ca>
> Subject: Re: [ec2-beta] ec2-attach-volume?
> To: ec2-beta at lists.ubuntu.com
> Message-ID: <49D18DA5.3040409 at onisland.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Agreed, I was able to to everything I needed via the AWS web console and
> keep the install relatively clean.
>
> Thanks all.
> -J
>
> John Hampton wrote:
> > +1 on not installing the ami tools. I'd rather have a bare instance and
> > let me configure it the way that I want.
> >
> > JH
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Eric Hammond <ehammond at thinksome.com
> > <mailto:ehammond at thinksome.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There are also some good reasons *not* to install the ec2-api-tools
> by
> > default.
> >
> > It looks to me like it will add over 150 MB to the disk footprint of
> the
> > AMI. This will increase the load time of the image from S3,
> increasing
> > instance startup time on EC2.
> >
> > In my experience and testing, the size of the image is the primary
> > factor in determining instance startup time (though Amazon's image
> > caching can also have an effect in some cases).
> >
> > The API tools require Java, so that would need to be installed on the
> > image. I'm not sure everybody will want the same version of Java
> > installed on their instances.
> >
> > Based on the last time I tested them (months ago), the API tools
> require
> > Sun's version of Java. In order for this to be installed, you must
> > accept Sun's license. I was not comfortable doing that when building
> > public EC2 images as I would, in theory, be accepting the license for
> > every person who runs those images or be forced to have them accept
> the
> > license before running it.
> >
> > Since we don't know many folks are going to want to use the API tools
> on
> > their EC2 instances (rare in my case), I think the above negatives
> > outweigh the benefits.
> >
> > My belief is that the server image should be as minimal as possible,
> not
> > providing lots of extra tools just in case folks need them,
> especially
> > since many EC2 use cases require running lots of instances where
> startup
> > time matters.
> >
> > I do vote for making it easy to install the API tools on an Ubuntu
> > instance for folks who want to do this. It sounds like progress is
> > being made in that direction.
> >
> > --
> > Eric Hammond
> > ehammond at thinksome.com <mailto:ehammond at thinksome.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > Chuck Short wrote:
> > > Yes there is a good case to install the ec2-api-tools by default.
> > Amazon
> > > has recently updated the license so we can distribute it the
> > archive. I
> > > have already packaged it for ubuntu and it will be included in
> > the next
> > > beta.
> > >
> > >
> > > chuck
> > >
> > > Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> > >> Eric Hammond wrote:
> > >>> The official Ubuntu beta2 images for EC2 have the EC2 AMI
> > command line
> > >>> tools installed, but not the EC2 API command line tools.
> > >>>
> > >>> ec2-attach-volume is part of the API tools, so you would need
> > to install
> > >>> them if you want to use this command on the EC2 instance.
> > >>>
> > >> Is there a good case for having the API tools installed by
> default?
> > >>
> > >> Mark
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Ec2-beta mailing list
> > Ec2-beta at lists.ubuntu.com <mailto:Ec2-beta at lists.ubuntu.com>
> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ec2-beta
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > John O. Hampton, Jr., CTO
> > CleanOffer, Inc.
> > 101 California Street
> > Suite 2450 #612
> > San Francisco, CA 94111
> >
> > Homepage: http://www.cleanoffer.com
> > Blog: http://blog.cleanoffer.com
> >
> > (415) 240-4532 (office)
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:41:44 -0400
> From: Aaron Nall <aronahl at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ec2-beta] ec2-attach-volume?
> To: ec2-beta at lists.ubuntu.com
> Message-ID:
> <10445d060903302141g61c13fcdw8af166c3723c3160 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I prefer to use Tim Kay's much smaller (40k) and faster perl-based command
> line utilities: http://timkay.com/aws/
>
> The license is very permissive, requiring only that author attribution be
> maintained in the comments.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Eric Hammond <ehammond at thinksome.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > There are also some good reasons *not* to install the ec2-api-tools by
> > default.
> >
> > It looks to me like it will add over 150 MB to the disk footprint of the
> > AMI. This will increase the load time of the image from S3, increasing
> > instance startup time on EC2.
> >
> > In my experience and testing, the size of the image is the primary
> > factor in determining instance startup time (though Amazon's image
> > caching can also have an effect in some cases).
> >
> > The API tools require Java, so that would need to be installed on the
> > image. I'm not sure everybody will want the same version of Java
> > installed on their instances.
> >
> > Based on the last time I tested them (months ago), the API tools require
> > Sun's version of Java. In order for this to be installed, you must
> > accept Sun's license. I was not comfortable doing that when building
> > public EC2 images as I would, in theory, be accepting the license for
> > every person who runs those images or be forced to have them accept the
> > license before running it.
> >
> > Since we don't know many folks are going to want to use the API tools on
> > their EC2 instances (rare in my case), I think the above negatives
> > outweigh the benefits.
> >
> > My belief is that the server image should be as minimal as possible, not
> > providing lots of extra tools just in case folks need them, especially
> > since many EC2 use cases require running lots of instances where startup
> > time matters.
> >
> > I do vote for making it easy to install the API tools on an Ubuntu
> > instance for folks who want to do this. It sounds like progress is
> > being made in that direction.
> >
> > --
> > Eric Hammond
> > ehammond at thinksome.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Chuck Short wrote:
> > > Yes there is a good case to install the ec2-api-tools by default.
> Amazon
> > > has recently updated the license so we can distribute it the archive. I
> > > have already packaged it for ubuntu and it will be included in the next
> > > beta.
> > >
> > >
> > > chuck
> > >
> > > Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> > >> Eric Hammond wrote:
> > >>> The official Ubuntu beta2 images for EC2 have the EC2 AMI command
> line
> > >>> tools installed, but not the EC2 API command line tools.
> > >>>
> > >>> ec2-attach-volume is part of the API tools, so you would need to
> > install
> > >>> them if you want to use this command on the EC2 instance.
> > >>>
> > >> Is there a good case for having the API tools installed by default?
> > >>
> > >> Mark
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Ec2-beta mailing list
> > Ec2-beta at lists.ubuntu.com
> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ec2-beta
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/private/ec2-beta/attachments/20090331/60c644cd/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:37:15 +0200
> From: Thomas Butter <thomas at butter.eu>
> Subject: Re: [ec2-beta] ec2 concepts and understanding
> To: Jason Morehouse <jm at onisland.ca>
> Cc: ec2-beta at lists.ubuntu.com
> Message-ID: <388B0D8B-1F8B-4550-8B7C-817D8D7534D1 at butter.eu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> from a running instance you could do something similar to this:
>
> sudo ec2-bundle-vol -d /mnt -k YOUR-EC2-PRIVATE-KEY-FILE -c YOUR-EC2-
> CERT-FILE -u YOUR-AWS-ACCOUNT-NUMBER-WITHOUT-DASHED -r i386 -p
> mynewimage
>
> ec2-upload-bundle -b YOUR-TARGET-S3-BUCKET -m /mnt/
> mynewimage.manifest.xml -a YOUR-S3-ACCESSKEY -s YOUR-S3-SECRETKEY
>
> You can then register the image at http://console.aws.amazon.com/
> using
> http://s3.amazonaws.com/YOUR-TARGET-S3-BUCKET/mynewimage.manifest.xml
>
> Please refer to the EC2 documentation for details about these commands.
>
> Regards,
>
> Thomas
>
> On 30.03.2009, at 22:09, Jason Morehouse wrote:
>
> > Is there an easy way to build a custom AIM from a running instance?
> >
> > Darryl wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Jim Cheetham <jim at inode.co.nz>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Darryl <smartssa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'm just wondering about how persistent these instances are
> >>>> supposed to be
> >>>> on the EC2 cloud.
> >>>>
> >>> An AMI is a read-only "image" of a machine. In itself it doesn't do
> >>> anything, and doesn't run. It's just the equivalent of files on a
> >>> disk.
> >>>
> >>> An 'instance' is a running virtual machine. An instance starts
> >>> with an
> >>> AMI, and the equivalent of being "switched on" and booted from disk.
> >>>
> >>> An instance lives in EC2 memory only. There is no permanent storage
> >>> associated with it, unless you configure EBS or S3 specifically for
> >>> it. The filesystems that you see in an instance are virtual; they
> >>> will
> >>> still be there if you reboot your instance, but once you stop it,
> >>> Amazon releases the whole associated memory, and the instance is
> >>> lost.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thank you Jim, that makes the whole scenario clear.
> >>
> >> Now I have an idea as to how to use this thing.
> >>
> >> --
> >> ~ Darryl ~ smartssa at gmail.com
> >> ~ http://darrylclarke.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Ec2-beta mailing list
> > Ec2-beta at lists.ubuntu.com
> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ec2-beta
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> --
> Ec2-beta mailing list
> Ec2-beta at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ec2-beta
>
>
> End of Ec2-beta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 32
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/private/ec2/attachments/20090607/69c53dc6/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Ec2
mailing list