Templates for IPV6 feature in 4.1 is different from the 4.2 templates. They are hosted here - http://cloudstack.apt-get.eu/systemvm/ as 4.1.0-experimental-ipv6-* . Also support was extended only for KVM and Xenserver.
-Thanks Sangeetha -----Original Message----- From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:27 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492? I'm not sure how well tested they are, but they're already more or less compatible. The idea was floated to provide ipv6 preview with instructions to use the 4.2 template. On May 21, 2013 5:09 PM, "John Burwell" <jburw...@basho.com> wrote: > Chiradeep, > > Is it possible to "back port" the 4.2 system VMs to 4.1? What would > be involved in such an effort? > > Thanks, > -John > > On May 21, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Chiradeep Vittal > <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> > wrote: > > > The latest 4.2 systemvms do have ntp built in. The earlier comment > > about HVM is incorrect. It is PV (PVOPS, to be exact). With PVOPS > > Linux vms, there is no sync between domU and dom0. > > > > On 5/21/13 2:45 PM, "Marcus Sorensen" <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> +1, it seems that it is no worse off then it ever has been, aside > >> +from > >> the caveat that newer features are beginning to rely on it. I do > >> agree though that it could perhaps be rolled into the newer system > >> vm, as an option for people to use at their own risk. > >> > >> Of course, if someone wants to patch it up and get testing going, > >> I'm all for that as well. I just don't see holding things up. > >> > >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> > wrote: > >>> David, > >>> > >>> I am willing to do the work. However, as I understand the > >>> circumstances, a complete build process for the system VMs has not > >>> been released. If I am incorrect in my understanding, I will do > >>> the work necessary to fix the problem. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> -John > >>> > >>> On May 21, 2013, at 5:29 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Chip Childers > >>>> <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > >>>>> All, > >>>>> > >>>>> As discussed on another thread [1], we identified a bug > >>>>> (CLOUDSTACK-2492) in the current 3.x system VMs, where the > >>>>> System VMs are not configured to sync their time with either the > >>>>> host HV or an NTP service. That bug affects the system VMs for > >>>>> all three primary HVs (KVM, Xen and vSphere). Patches have been > >>>>> committed addressing vSphere and KVM. It appears that a > >>>>> correction for Xen would require the re-build of a system VM > >>>>> image and a full round of regression testing that image. > >>>>> > >>>>> Given that the discussion thread has not resulted in a consensus > >>>>> on this issue, I unfortunately believe that the only path > >>>>> forward is to call for a formal VOTE. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please respond with one of the following: > >>>>> > >>>>> +1: proceed with 4.1 without the Xen portion of CLOUDSTACK-2492 > >>>>> +being > >>>>> resolved > >>>>> +0: don't care one way or the other > >>>>> -1: do *not* proceed with any further 4.1 release candidates > >>>>> until > >>>>> CLOUDSTACK-2492 has been fully resolved > >>>>> > >>>>> -chip > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/rw7vciq3r33biasb > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> So it appalls me that this problem exists. If I understand > >>>> correctly, from folks who commercially support derivatives of > >>>> ACS. Lack of time synchronization has been a factor in major > >>>> outages, but that's typically been between the hypervisors and > >>>> management servers. > >>>> Regardless we realize (or should) that time is important for so > >>>> many reasons (encryption, logs, and scores of other reasons) > >>>> > >>>> But when the rubber meets the road - here are the two points that > >>>> decide it for me. > >>>> > >>>> 1. This is not a new problem. It's bad, it shouldn't exist, but > >>>> it does, and it has for some time it would seem. That suggests > >>>> it's not catastrophic, and hasn't yet blocked folks from getting > >>>> things done with CloudStack. > >>>> > >>>> 2. I see no one stepping up to do the work. I am not personally a > >>>> fan of issuing what is the effective equivalent of an 'unfunded mandate'. > >>>> The problem isn't just one of building a new SSVM - it's one of > >>>> testing it, and repeating all of the validation that has already > >>>> been done with the existing sysvm. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps there is a middle ground (we have a default sysvm, but > >>>> perhaps like we are doing with the IPv6-enabled sysvm we have a > >>>> time-enabled sysvm available for folks. > >>>> > >>>> Regardless - you called a vote, so I'll reluctantly cast a +1 - I > >>>> hate that we are seeing this problem, but with no one stepping up > >>>> to do all of the work, I'm not quite ready to hold a release > >>>> hostage waiting to find such a person. > >>>> > >>>> --David > >>> > > > >
