Vagrant core no longer tied to VirtualBox
1–10 of 61 posts
Re: Vagrant core no longer tied to VirtualBox
#2This is exciting news.
I know one fellow who built a large private cloud for his organisation (about two racks of topline gear) so that they could simulate an architecture of several dozen servers and thousands of complex, concurrent transations.
What's it built on? VMWare. He was not totally amused when I sent him a link to Vagrant.
(I understand VMWare have similar fleet-orchestration tools, but not development-oriented as vagrant is -- awesome for production though).
Putting aside my friend, I can also see performance gains from in-kernel virtualisation schemes such as KVM^w lxc or Solaris Zones.
Bravo to the Vagrant team. This tool has become one of the centrepieces of how I personally do development.
Re: Vagrant core no longer tied to VirtualBox
#3Reimplementing libvirt, badly ...
Re: Vagrant core no longer tied to VirtualBox
#4Good to hear this. I had several issues with Virtual Box in the past on OS X(Lion, Mountain Lion) and it even produced 3-4 times a kernel crash on my MacBook. I switched to VMWare Fusion then and all the complains were gone.
Re: Vagrant core no longer tied to VirtualBox
#5This is exciting news. I know one fellow who built a large private cloud for his organisation (about two racks of topline gear) so that they could simulate an architecture of several dozen servers and thousands of complex, concurrent transations. What's it built on? VMWare. He was not totally amused when I sent him a link to Vagrant. (I understand VMWare have similar fleet-orchestration tools, but not development-ori…
KVM is a full virtualization solution, Zones is a container (same kernel). Maybe you mean lxc, the Linux container system?
Re: Vagrant core no longer tied to VirtualBox
#6This is exciting news. I know one fellow who built a large private cloud for his organisation (about two racks of topline gear) so that they could simulate an architecture of several dozen servers and thousands of complex, concurrent transations. What's it built on? VMWare. He was not totally amused when I sent him a link to Vagrant. (I understand VMWare have similar fleet-orchestration tools, but not development-ori…
KVM is a full virtualization solution, Zones is a container (same kernel). Maybe you mean lxc, the Linux container system?
Thanks for the correction.
Re: Vagrant core no longer tied to VirtualBox
#7Reimplementing libvirt, badly ...
They are right now in the stages of removing proprietary code towards a modular architecture. I think it's more likely they could implement libvert as a plugin. The focus isn't to make a pluggable architecture for vm emulators(libvert). But to make vagrant itself more robust, by removing it's ties to virtualbox with a plugin system.
Re: Vagrant core no longer tied to VirtualBox
#8Reimplementing libvirt, badly ...
I've always liked what vagrant did for the other systems (re: non-linux). However, with this change, it seems they are indeed going in this direction and, well, that is a shame. I might be missing something but it seems they would do much better to build on other tech.
The best I've seen is Ubuntu and how it does it (using libvirt among others, KVM etc - http://www.ubuntu.com/business/server/virtualisation). Would be awesome if they were all playing well together. And, perhaps, vagrant is going to actually do that in the future.
Re: Vagrant core no longer tied to VirtualBox
#9> Showing 122 changed files with 4,156 additions and 2,915 deletions.
Wow, that's a lot of code for a tool which is doing little more than creating, starting, stopping, deleting, and zipping-up VMs. Looking at this diff, all I can say is: Holy Java-ish Ruby, Batman!
Most of these classes contain two non-helper methods: init and call. That's not a class; that's a function! I'm reminded of this talk, titled "Stop Writing Classes": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3717715
I've used Vagrant before, but it always felt like overkill. When I had an issue with it, I cracked open the code and was quickly deterred from digging deeper. I hacked my VM back to working by hand and decided to avoid mucking with Vagrant.
The next time I need automated development VM provisioning, I plan to write a very small shell script. Here's an example of getting a box up and running with 7ish commands: http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7673/ For a complete development environment, you only need to additionally mount a shared filesystem and write an entry into your ssh config.
All that said, I do think that there is value in having a command line tool which abstracts various machine provisioning APIs. I know that such a thing exists for cloud providers, but I suspect local VMs have some unique concerns. Regardless, it seems like a task that a shell script is best suited for.
Re: Vagrant core no longer tied to VirtualBox
#10This is really great news. Vagrant has really made my life easier as a developer, thanks Mitchell! I prefer VMware so this is awesome!
I personally think vagrant needs a UI manager of some sorts (I 'm thinking about doing this when I have more free time). I have about 10-15 vagrant boxes now and it can be a pain to manage. Having to go into each project directory and manually up'ing each vagrant box can be tedious.