CloudFoundry - BOSH vs BOSH Lite?

[Rishi]

Folks - I am new to CF/BOSH so bear with me if this is a trivial question.

From what I understand BOSH is used to deploy CloudFoundry on IaaS.  So what exactly is the purpose of Bosh Lite other than being able to deploy local a CF instance on Windows (for example)?  Can't CF be deployed locally using BOSH?  I am sure answer is staring me at my face but I can't see it :)

Also, is it safe to assume that when deploying CloudFoundry locally, IaaS layer is "emulated" by VirtualBox which in turn also requires that CPU supports VT-x/AMD-V virtualization technologies?

Thanks for any insight.

[Wayne E. Seguin]

Hi Rishi, welcome!

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Rishi <misra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Folks - I am new to CF/BOSH so bear with me if this is a trivial question.

From what I understand BOSH is used to deploy CloudFoundry on IaaS.  So what exactly is the purpose of Bosh Lite other than being able to deploy local a CF instance on Windows (for example)?  Can't CF be deployed locally using BOSH?  I am sure answer is staring me at my face but I can't see it :)

BOSH Lite allows you yes experiment with running CF locally but more important it allows you a method for more rapidly developing on and testing BOSH Releases.

Also, is it safe to assume that when deploying CloudFoundry locally, IaaS layer is "emulated" by VirtualBox which in turn also requires that CPU supports VT-x/AMD-V virtualization technologies?

I *believe* this is the case however I haven't tested without it :)

  ~Wayne

[Wayne E. Seguin]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Rishi <misra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Also, is it safe to assume that when deploying CloudFoundry locally, IaaS layer is "emulated" by VirtualBox which in turn also requires that CPU supports VT-x/AMD-V virtualization technologies?

re-reading this, IaaS layer is emulated using warden containers within the bosh-lite VM itself. Eg. each 'vm' that is created is actually a Linux Container. So no, you likely do not need VT-X/AMD-V virtualization because they are not actual VMs but rather kernel namespaces and related items.

[misra...@gmail.com]

Thanks Wayne - I had hoped this was the case but VirtualBox was unable to start bosh-lite Vagrant instance and when I looked up the error code it said something to the effect that "VT-x is not available".  To be fair, this error occurred in a virtualized Linux box on which I had installed VirtualBox and Vagrant and was trying to install CloudFoundry.  I assume this is not a supported scenario as there were 2 layers of virtualization involved - bosh-lite Vagrant/virtualBox combo running on top of a virtualized Redhat instance.

[Wayne E. Seguin]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:04 PM, <misra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Wayne - I had hoped this was the case but VirtualBox was unable to start bosh-lite Vagrant instance and when I looked up the error code it said something to the effect that "VT-x is not available".  To be fair, this error occurred in a virtualized Linux box on which I had installed VirtualBox and Vagrant and was trying to install CloudFoundry.  I assume this is not a supported scenario as there were 2 layers of virtualization involved - bosh-lite Vagrant/virtualBox combo running on top of a virtualized Redhat instance.

Ahh, In the scenario you describe the outer VM must have the processor extensions enabled so that the vagrant within the inner box will work.  

[Wayne E. Seguin]

Sorry, I meant 'VirtualBox' not 'Vagrant' although both apply.