May I humbly suggest that the configuration (SG + Advanced + VMWare) was never supported and the end user got themselves into an unfortunate situation by using an unsupported configuration (even if the software let them do it). I have perused both 2.2.13 and 2.2.14 install guides and it is quite clear that security groups are only supported with Xen and KVM, for basic zone.
On 5/20/13 12:36 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:50PM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: >> >> On May 17, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi >><animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com] >> >> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM >> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> >> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.z...@leaseweb.com) >> >> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 >>vs 4.2 >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi >> >> <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> So I am confused looks like Nicolas was not using this feature as >>it was not >> >> supported for Vmware any way so how is upgrade blocked? >> >>> >> >> >> >> Animesh, I talked with nicolas and the way I understand it is that >>they had to >> >> enable SG to set their VLANs in advanced zone the way they needed to. >> >> They actually did not use the SG functionality. Beats me but I don't >>know >> >> 2.2.14(13) >> > [Animesh>] I am not sure why would SG be needed to set their VLANs in >>advanced zone? >> >> I think only someone with knowledge of 2.2.14 would understand that. >> >> > If Anthony's patch is available in 4.1 wouldn't it fix the issue or >>is it that upgrade gets stuck in intermediate step during upgrade to 4.0? >> >> I don't know. My understanding is that Anthony's patch won't be usable >>for vmware hypervisor. > >So we are at a bit of an impasse here, and I'm not sure that we have >figured out what our options might even be. > >Here's the situation: > >We have people stuck on 2.x right now that were using SG's within >Advanced Zones. That feature seems to have been dropped from the code >from before CloudStack was in the ASF. We have work in-progress for >4.2 to make that feature a feature again. The 4.2 work does *not* >include VMware environments. > >We have some decisions to make: > >Decision 1: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until the work in >progress is complete for Xen and KVM (and tested)? > >Decision 2: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until *both* the >Xen/KVM implementation and a VMware implementation exist? > >Decision 3: Do we solve the VMware upgrade path by ensuring that the >right DB bits exist to transition an installation from 2.x to 4.1 in a >way that drops SG support in advanced zones using Vmware HVs? > >Decision 4: Do we keep people in this situation stranded on 2.x? > >I'm personally frustrated that we have users stuck on 2.x right now. >This is happened to us a couple of times since the project came to >Apache, where the community has found out that something was dropped or >effectively eaten away by "bit rot". I am, however, thankful that we are >able to make decisions about features health as a community going forward. > >I'd appreciate if others can bring their ideas / thoughts to this thread >so that we can move forward. I'm asking for tactical ideas here... If >I'm not clear on the issues as stated so far, correct me please. > >If I don't hear anything over the next day or so, I'm going to >start a VOTE thread to accept the current state of things as is for 4.1 >and move forward with a 4.1 release. This is not my preference, but >without specific suggestions to resolve the problem, there isn't much >else >I can see doing get past our current impasse. > >-chip
