from:"\"Saksham Srivastava\""



> On March 13, 2014, 4:55 p.m., Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> > Also why don't start routers in parallel? First, get all the router nics in 
> > one query like John suggested, then span start process for routers in 
> > separate threads, check the status of each job using Future.

Sure I will do that.


- Saksham


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/#review37066
---


On March 13, 2014, 7:31 a.m., Saksham Srivastava wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/
> ---
> 
> (Updated March 13, 2014, 7:31 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack, John Burwell and Murali Reddy.
> 
> 
> Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-5999
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5999
> 
> 
> Repository: cloudstack-git
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> When a guest is rebooted from CloudStack, if the virtual router managing the 
> guest network of that guest is down, CloudStack will not start the virtual 
> router.
> However the router is started in case the guest vm is stopped and then 
> started.
> To mantain similarity between the 2 process it is necessary to start the VR 
> in case it is not running.
> The fix will address the same.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   server/src/com/cloud/vm/UserVmManagerImpl.java be00aa8 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Testing:
> 1) vm in a single guest network :
>vm Reboot : If the VR is stopped: VR is first started and then 
> the VM reboots.
>vm Reboot : If the VR is running, VM reboots as it used to.
> vm Stop/Start continue to work the same.
> 
> 2)  vm having nics in multi networks :
>vm Reboot : If VR in any/all network is stopped: VRs are first 
> started and then the VM reboots.
>vm Reboot : If the VRs are running, VM reboots as it used to.
> vm Stop/Start continue to work the same.
> 
> 3) vpc :
>    Tested the above scenarios for vpc also, works fine.
> 
> Patch applies cleanly.
> Build passes succesfully.
> FindBug is passed.
> Rebased against latest master.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Saksham Srivastava
> 
>

Re: Review Request 17736: CLOUDSTACK-5999: Virtual Router does not start if Guest VM is rebooted from CloudStack



> On March 13, 2014, 4:46 p.m., John Burwell wrote:
> > server/src/com/cloud/vm/UserVmManagerImpl.java, line 756
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/diff/3/?file=518208#file518208line756>
> >
> > Two queries are executed in this for loop which puts stress on the 
> > database and slows down the application.  Furthermore, this for loop 
> > appears to be performing in-memory join and filter operations.  Please 
> > refactor into a single query performed by the most appropriate DAO.

I guess I completely misunderstood the last comment by you, now it makes 
complete sense to me. Thanks for the suggestion John, I will update my patch 
with a single query.


- Saksham


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/#review37061
-------


On March 13, 2014, 7:31 a.m., Saksham Srivastava wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/
> ---
> 
> (Updated March 13, 2014, 7:31 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack, John Burwell and Murali Reddy.
> 
> 
> Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-5999
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5999
> 
> 
> Repository: cloudstack-git
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> When a guest is rebooted from CloudStack, if the virtual router managing the 
> guest network of that guest is down, CloudStack will not start the virtual 
> router.
> However the router is started in case the guest vm is stopped and then 
> started.
> To mantain similarity between the 2 process it is necessary to start the VR 
> in case it is not running.
> The fix will address the same.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   server/src/com/cloud/vm/UserVmManagerImpl.java be00aa8 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Testing:
> 1) vm in a single guest network :
>vm Reboot : If the VR is stopped: VR is first started and then 
> the VM reboots.
>vm Reboot : If the VR is running, VM reboots as it used to.
> vm Stop/Start continue to work the same.
> 
> 2)  vm having nics in multi networks :
>vm Reboot : If VR in any/all network is stopped: VRs are first 
> started and then the VM reboots.
>vm Reboot : If the VRs are running, VM reboots as it used to.
> vm Stop/Start continue to work the same.
> 
> 3) vpc :
>Tested the above scenarios for vpc also, works fine.
> 
> Patch applies cleanly.
> Build passes succesfully.
> FindBug is passed.
> Rebased against latest master.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Saksham Srivastava
> 
>

Re: Review Request 19036: CLOUDSTACK-6092: Storage OverProvisioning as a Per Primary Basis

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19036/
---

(Updated March 14, 2014, 12:10 p.m.)

Review request for cloudstack, Devdeep Singh, Likitha Shetty, Rajesh Battala,
and Sateesh Chodapuneedi.

Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-6092
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6092

Repository: cloudstack-git

Description
---

The feature allows CloudStack admins to define over-provisioning for individual
primary data storages. This will eliminate the tight dependency over the global
parameter to leverage underlying overprovisioning.
admin can update an existing primary store by setting overprovisioning in the
per primary setting.
This value will override the value at the global level. To fall back to the
global value, null value can be passed.
Added overprovisioning as a part of Storage Pool response.
Currently limited to NFS and VMFS data stores.
Appropriate logs added to inform about capacity calculations.
Upgraded setup will migrate the data from data_center_details table to
storage_pool_details
FS :
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Storage+OverProvisioning+as+Per+Primary+Basis

Diffs
-

api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/response/StoragePoolResponse.java 03a4f34
engine/components-api/src/com/cloud/capacity/CapacityManager.java bd1a610
server/src/com/cloud/api/query/dao/StoragePoolJoinDaoImpl.java 274bf1c
server/src/com/cloud/capacity/StorageCapacityListener.java 4322ecf
server/src/com/cloud/storage/StorageManagerImpl.java 913dc23
setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql 9298f72
test/integration/smoke/test_over_provisioning.py PRE-CREATION

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19036/diff/

Testing
---

Build passes successfully.
Rat build for the new file passes.
Patch applies cleanly.

The following scenarios tested:
setting and resetting of the overprovision factor.
setting the factor to null
adding new data stores
capacity calculations

New Marvin test: test_over_provisioning.py added

Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Re: Review Request 19036: CLOUDSTACK-6092: Storage OverProvisioning as a Per Primary Basis

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19036/
---

(Updated March 14, 2014, 12:10 p.m.)

Review request for cloudstack, Devdeep Singh, Likitha Shetty, Rajesh Battala,
and Sateesh Chodapuneedi.

Changes
---

Re-rebasing the patch.

Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-6092
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6092

Repository: cloudstack-git

Description
---

Diffs (updated)
-

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19036/diff/

Testing
---

Build passes successfully.
Rat build for the new file passes.
Patch applies cleanly.

The following scenarios tested:
setting and resetting of the overprovision factor.
setting the factor to null
adding new data stores
capacity calculations

New Marvin test: test_over_provisioning.py added

Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Re: Review Request 19036: CLOUDSTACK-6092: Storage OverProvisioning as a Per Primary Basis

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19036/
---

(Updated March 14, 2014, 11:21 a.m.)

Review request for cloudstack, Devdeep Singh, Likitha Shetty, Rajesh Battala,
and Sateesh Chodapuneedi.

Changes
---

Rebased against latest master.

Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-6092
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6092

Repository: cloudstack-git

Description
---

Diffs (updated)
-

api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/response/StoragePoolResponse.java 03a4f34
engine/components-api/src/com/cloud/capacity/CapacityManager.java bd1a610
server/src/com/cloud/api/query/dao/StoragePoolJoinDaoImpl.java 274bf1c
server/src/com/cloud/capacity/StorageCapacityListener.java 4322ecf
server/src/com/cloud/storage/StorageManagerImpl.java 913dc23
setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql 9d41fe9
test/integration/smoke/test_over_provisioning.py PRE-CREATION

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19036/diff/

Testing
---

Build passes successfully.
Rat build for the new file passes.
Patch applies cleanly.

The following scenarios tested:
setting and resetting of the overprovision factor.
setting the factor to null
adding new data stores
capacity calculations

New Marvin test: test_over_provisioning.py added

Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Re: Review Request 17736: CLOUDSTACK-5999: Virtual Router does not start if Guest VM is rebooted from CloudStack

2014-03-13 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/
---

(Updated March 13, 2014, 7:31 a.m.)


Review request for cloudstack, John Burwell and Murali Reddy.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-5999
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5999


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

When a guest is rebooted from CloudStack, if the virtual router managing the 
guest network of that guest is down, CloudStack will not start the virtual 
router.
However the router is started in case the guest vm is stopped and then started.
To mantain similarity between the 2 process it is necessary to start the VR in 
case it is not running.
The fix will address the same.


Diffs
-

  server/src/com/cloud/vm/UserVmManagerImpl.java be00aa8 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/diff/


Testing
---

Testing:
1) vm in a single guest network :
   vm Reboot : If the VR is stopped: VR is first started and then 
the VM reboots.
   vm Reboot : If the VR is running, VM reboots as it used to.
vm Stop/Start continue to work the same.

2)  vm having nics in multi networks :
   vm Reboot : If VR in any/all network is stopped: VRs are first 
started and then the VM reboots.
   vm Reboot : If the VRs are running, VM reboots as it used to.
vm Stop/Start continue to work the same.

3) vpc :
   Tested the above scenarios for vpc also, works fine.

Patch applies cleanly.
Build passes succesfully.
FindBug is passed.
Rebased against latest master.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Re: Review Request 17736: CLOUDSTACK-5999: Virtual Router does not start if Guest VM is rebooted from CloudStack

2014-03-13 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/
---

(Updated March 13, 2014, 7:02 a.m.)


Review request for cloudstack, John Burwell and Murali Reddy.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-5999
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5999


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

When a guest is rebooted from CloudStack, if the virtual router managing the 
guest network of that guest is down, CloudStack will not start the virtual 
router.
However the router is started in case the guest vm is stopped and then started.
To mantain similarity between the 2 process it is necessary to start the VR in 
case it is not running.
The fix will address the same.


Diffs (updated)
-

  server/src/com/cloud/vm/UserVmManagerImpl.java be00aa8 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/diff/


Testing (updated)
---

Testing:
1) vm in a single guest network :
   vm Reboot : If the VR is stopped: VR is first started and then 
the VM reboots.
   vm Reboot : If the VR is running, VM reboots as it used to.
vm Stop/Start continue to work the same.

2)  vm having nics in multi networks :
   vm Reboot : If VR in any/all network is stopped: VRs are first 
started and then the VM reboots.
   vm Reboot : If the VRs are running, VM reboots as it used to.
vm Stop/Start continue to work the same.

3) vpc :
   Tested the above scenarios for vpc also, works fine.

Patch applies cleanly.
Build passes succesfully.
FindBug is passed.
Rebased against latest master.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

RE: Affinity Groups and Project

The bug tracking URL is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK/
You can log the ticket here.

-Original Message-
From: zcsu [mailto:szc...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 7:29 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Prachi Damle
Subject: RE: Affinity Groups and Project

Thanks Prachi very much.
 Would you hint me how to log a ticket to change the display result for project 
view? Thanks again.
 
> From: prachi.da...@citrix.com
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Affinity Groups and Project
> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:34:29 +
> 
> Yes Affinity Groups feature does not support projects. This is 
> mentioned in the FS for that feature, check the FAQ part 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/FS+-+Affinity-A
> nti-affinity+groups
> 
> 
> You should probably log a ticket to change the display result for project 
> view.
> 
> Thanks,
> Prachi
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Saksham Srivastava [mailto:saksham.srivast...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 3:07 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Affinity Groups and Project
> 
> Can you provide more logs, you can upload them on pastebin.
> 
> Thanks,
> Saksham
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: zcsu [mailto:szc...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 3:15 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Affinity Groups and Project
> 
> Question: Whether Project can not support Affinity Groups?
> Environment: CS4.2 + Xenserver6.2
>Advance Zone
> Step:
> 1.  I set a host as dedicated host to an account, affinity groups 
> will auto create a affinity groups with type ExplicitDedication .
>  2. Then I create a Project and add the account has dedicated host.
>  
> when I try creat a VM in Project view, I can select affinity groups has been 
> auto created. but created VM will failed with error "Entity AffinityGroup 
> [dc4751ao-d2cb-463e-8351-384b9422313] and entity acct 
> [3f526aid-d9ab-40ec-a6a5-9b61c84cb1el-PrjAcct-CPSM-1] belong to different 
> accounts"
>  
> Note: I also try to create new affinity groups in project ,the same error 
> happend.
>  
> So  Project can not use Affinity Groups? If is yes, why affinity group 
> display in project view?
>  
> Anybody can answer, very thanks!
>  
>  
>  
>  
>

Re: Review Request 14124: CLOUDSTACK-4622 : If a VM from guest network is added to network tier of VPC then IP reservation allows the CIDR to be a superset of Network CIDR for that VPC tier


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/14124/
---

(Updated March 12, 2014, 2:25 p.m.)


Review request for cloudstack, Jayapal Reddy and Sateesh Chodapuneedi.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-4622
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4622


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

Add a new utility method for comparing 2 CIDRs.
The method takes in 2 cidrs, cidrA and cidrB and returns true if cidrA's IP 
range is equal or a subset of cidrB's IP range.


Diffs
-

  utils/src/com/cloud/utils/net/NetUtils.java 6350986 
  utils/test/com/cloud/utils/net/NetUtilsTest.java 3183826 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14124/diff/


Testing
---

Added unit test for the utility.
Tested locally.
Build is successful.
Patch applies cleanly.
No FindBug issues.

Results of marvin test: test_vpc.py
Test list VPC APIs ... ok
Test restart VPC having no networks ... ok
Test restart VPC having networks ... ok
Test delete VPC having no networks ... ok
Test delete VPC having networks ... ok
Test list VPC APIs for different user roles ... ok
Test Restart VPC when there are multiple networks associated ... ok
Test vpc deletion after account deletion ... ok
Test to create vpc and verify VPC state, VR and SourceNatIP ... ok
Test creation of multiple VPCs with non-overlapping CIDRs ... ok
Test deployment of vm in a VPC without network domain ... ok
Test deployment of vm in a VPC with network domain ... ok
Test deployment of vm in a VPC with network domain ... ok
Test vm deploy in network by a user where VPC was created without 
account/domain ID ... ok
Test deployment of vm in a network in a domain admin account where VPC is 
created without account/domain ID ... ok
Test deployment of vm in a network by root admin for user. ... ok
Test deployment of vm in a network by domain admin for user. ... ok
Test creation of network by domain admin for user from different domain ... ok
Test creation of VPC without mandatory parameters ... ok
Test to verify updation of vpc name and display text ... ok

few tests from: test_vpc_network.py
Test create network in VPC ... ok
Test create network in VPC ... SKIP: Netscaler not configured: skipping test
Test create network in VPC mismatched services (Should fail) ... ok
Test create multiple networks with LB service (Should fail) ... ok
Test create network with external LB devices ... ok
Test create network with redundant router capability ... SKIP: skipped - RvR 
didn't support VPC currently
Test create network services not supported by VPC (Should fail) ... ok
Test create network without sourceNAT service in VPC (should fail) ... ok
Test create network with shared network offering ... ok
Test create network with conserve mode ON ... ok
Test create network with conserve mode ON ... ok
Test network gc after shutdown of vms in the network ... ok
Test network rules after starting a VpcVr that was shutdown after network.gc 
... ok
Test Stop all the Vms that are part of the a Network ... ok
Test create network outside cidr range of VPC ... ok
Test create network outside cidr range of VPC ... ok
Test create network inside cidr range of VPC ... ok
Test create network overlapping cidr range of VPC ... ok
Test create network from different account in VPC ... ok
Test update Network that is NOT part of a VPC to a nw offering that has 
services that are provided by VPCVR and vice versa ... ok


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Re: Review Request 14124: CLOUDSTACK-4622 : If a VM from guest network is added to network tier of VPC then IP reservation allows the CIDR to be a superset of Network CIDR for that VPC tier


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/14124/
---

(Updated March 12, 2014, 2:23 p.m.)


Review request for cloudstack, Jayapal Reddy and Sateesh Chodapuneedi.


Changes
---

Adding the output of marvin tests.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-4622
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4622


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

Add a new utility method for comparing 2 CIDRs.
The method takes in 2 cidrs, cidrA and cidrB and returns true if cidrA's IP 
range is equal or a subset of cidrB's IP range.


Diffs (updated)
-

  utils/src/com/cloud/utils/net/NetUtils.java 6350986 
  utils/test/com/cloud/utils/net/NetUtilsTest.java 3183826 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14124/diff/


Testing (updated)
---

Added unit test for the utility.
Tested locally.
Build is successful.
Patch applies cleanly.
No FindBug issues.

Results of marvin test: test_vpc.py
Test list VPC APIs ... ok
Test restart VPC having no networks ... ok
Test restart VPC having networks ... ok
Test delete VPC having no networks ... ok
Test delete VPC having networks ... ok
Test list VPC APIs for different user roles ... ok
Test Restart VPC when there are multiple networks associated ... ok
Test vpc deletion after account deletion ... ok
Test to create vpc and verify VPC state, VR and SourceNatIP ... ok
Test creation of multiple VPCs with non-overlapping CIDRs ... ok
Test deployment of vm in a VPC without network domain ... ok
Test deployment of vm in a VPC with network domain ... ok
Test deployment of vm in a VPC with network domain ... ok
Test vm deploy in network by a user where VPC was created without 
account/domain ID ... ok
Test deployment of vm in a network in a domain admin account where VPC is 
created without account/domain ID ... ok
Test deployment of vm in a network by root admin for user. ... ok
Test deployment of vm in a network by domain admin for user. ... ok
Test creation of network by domain admin for user from different domain ... ok
Test creation of VPC without mandatory parameters ... ok
Test to verify updation of vpc name and display text ... ok

few tests from: test_vpc_network.py
Test create network in VPC ... ok
Test create network in VPC ... SKIP: Netscaler not configured: skipping test
Test create network in VPC mismatched services (Should fail) ... ok
Test create multiple networks with LB service (Should fail) ... ok
Test create network with external LB devices ... ok
Test create network with redundant router capability ... SKIP: skipped - RvR 
didn't support VPC currently
Test create network services not supported by VPC (Should fail) ... ok
Test create network without sourceNAT service in VPC (should fail) ... ok
Test create network with shared network offering ... ok
Test create network with conserve mode ON ... ok
Test create network with conserve mode ON ... ok
Test network gc after shutdown of vms in the network ... ok
Test network rules after starting a VpcVr that was shutdown after network.gc 
... ok
Test Stop all the Vms that are part of the a Network ... ok
Test create network outside cidr range of VPC ... ok
Test create network outside cidr range of VPC ... ok
Test create network inside cidr range of VPC ... ok
Test create network overlapping cidr range of VPC ... ok
Test create network from different account in VPC ... ok
Test update Network that is NOT part of a VPC to a nw offering that has 
services that are provided by VPCVR and vice versa ... ok


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

RE: Affinity Groups and Project

Can you provide more logs, you can upload them on pastebin.

Thanks,
Saksham

-Original Message-
From: zcsu [mailto:szc...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 3:15 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Affinity Groups and Project

Question: Whether Project can not support Affinity Groups?
Environment: CS4.2 + Xenserver6.2
   Advance Zone
Step:
1.  I set a host as dedicated host to an account, affinity groups will 
auto create a affinity groups with type ExplicitDedication .
 2. Then I create a Project and add the account has dedicated host.

when I try creat a VM in Project view, I can select affinity groups has been 
auto created. but created VM will failed with error "Entity AffinityGroup 
[dc4751ao-d2cb-463e-8351-384b9422313] and entity acct 
[3f526aid-d9ab-40ec-a6a5-9b61c84cb1el-PrjAcct-CPSM-1] belong to different 
accounts"

Note: I also try to create new affinity groups in project ,the same error 
happend.

So  Project can not use Affinity Groups? If is yes, why affinity group display 
in project view?

Anybody can answer, very thanks!

RE: [PROPOSAL] Storage OverProvisioning as Per Primary Basis

2014-03-11 Thread Saksham Srivastava

Hi,
Created review request at https://reviews.apache.org/r/19036/
Tested the common scenarios and added Marvin test for the same.

Thanks,
Saksham

-Original Message-
From: Saksham Srivastava [mailto:saksham.srivast...@citrix.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 4:56 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Storage OverProvisioning as Per Primary Basis

Koushik/Mike,
Thanks for comments.

The current behavior is that we calculate the totalOverProvCapacity 
(storage.overprovisioning.factor * total storage capacity) for the destination 
PS.
When volume is being migrated across PS, the destination PS must have a higher 
totalOverProvCapacity than the expected total allocated space.

This feature will be on same lines as the current behavior except that now the 
storage.overprovisioning.factor will be a configurable parameter for the PS.

I will include this information with more detailed capacity computation along 
with more explanation on upgrade scenarios as soon as cwiki comes up.

As Mike pointed out, we can have Primary Storages at 3 levels : Local Storage 
(HOST), Cluster Storage(CLUSTER) ,  ZWPS (ZONE).
Storage scope was introduced for enhancing Granularity for configuration 
parameters in 4.2, so it would be good to use the same as an individual 
per-primary setting instead of multi scopes.

Thanks,
Saksham

-Original Message-
From: Mike Tutkowski [mailto:mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 4:25 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Storage OverProvisioning as Per Primary Basis

Just a reminder here that primary storage can also be at the zone level as of 
4.2.

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Koushik Das  wrote:

> Please add more details for upgrade scenario. Also can you give some 
> examples as to how the capacity computation is done for operations 
> where the volume gets migrated from one PS to another having different 
> over provisioning factors.
>
> Is there any value add if you give this also at cluster scope?
>
> -Koushik
>
> On 14-Feb-2014, at 2:13 PM, Saksham Srivastava < 
> saksham.srivast...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > CloudStack currently leverages storage overcommit/overprovisioning 
> > by
> specifying global setting storage.overprovisioning.factor
> > I would like to extend the granularity of global params to make 
> > storage
> overprovisioning as a per primary store basis.
> > Also it would allow admin to make more intuitive choice for
> overprovision factor depending upon the actual storage used.
> >
> > Bug Reference : 
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6092
> > Related : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5806
> > FS :
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Storage+OverPro
> visioning+as+Per+Primary+Basis
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Saksham
> >
>
>

--
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the
cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
*(tm)*

Review Request 19036: CLOUDSTACK-6092: Storage OverProvisioning as a Per Primary Basis

2014-03-11 Thread Saksham Srivastava

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19036/
---

Review request for cloudstack, Devdeep Singh, Likitha Shetty, Rajesh Battala,
and Sateesh Chodapuneedi.

Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-6092
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6092

Repository: cloudstack-git

Description
---

Diffs
-

api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/response/StoragePoolResponse.java 03a4f34
engine/components-api/src/com/cloud/capacity/CapacityManager.java bd1a610
server/src/com/cloud/api/query/dao/StoragePoolJoinDaoImpl.java 274bf1c
server/src/com/cloud/capacity/StorageCapacityListener.java 4322ecf
server/src/com/cloud/storage/StorageManagerImpl.java 52c2e7e
setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql ee4cf21
test/integration/smoke/test_over_provisioning.py PRE-CREATION

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19036/diff/

Testing
---

Build passes successfully.
Rat build for the new file passes.
Patch applies cleanly.

The following scenarios tested:
setting and resetting of the overprovision factor.
setting the factor to null
adding new data stores
capacity calculations

New Marvin test: test_over_provisioning.py added

Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Review Request 18768: CLOUDSTACK-6151: Local data disk with tag goes to the wrong local storage pool

2014-03-05 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18768/
---

Review request for cloudstack and Koushik Das.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-6151
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6151


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

Patch for master :
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18352/


Diffs
-

  
engine/schema/resources/META-INF/cloudstack/core/spring-engine-schema-core-daos-context.xml
 08efb83 
  
engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/datastore/db/PrimaryDataStoreDao.java
 2c4369d 
  
engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/datastore/db/PrimaryDataStoreDaoImpl.java
 57afa16 
  server/test/resources/createNetworkOffering.xml c6228da 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18768/diff/


Testing
---


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Re: Review Request 18352: CLOUDSTACK-6151: Local data disk with tag goes to the wrong local storage pool

2014-03-05 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18352/
---

(Updated March 5, 2014, 8:50 a.m.)


Review request for cloudstack, Koushik Das and Prachi Damle.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-6151
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6151


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

Attaching a new disk created from local disk offering with tags, to a VM was 
going to wrong local storage pool.
Cause : In LocalStoragePoolAlocator-
List hostPools = _poolHostDao.listByHostId(plan.getHostId());
It return pools by hostId, but nowhere were the tags being compared.

Added new method findLocalStoragePoolsByHostAndTags() that returns stoage pools 
by hostid and tags both.


Diffs (updated)
-

  
engine/schema/resources/META-INF/cloudstack/core/spring-engine-schema-core-daos-context.xml
 ea0bad9 
  
engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/datastore/db/PrimaryDataStoreDao.java
 59c338e 
  
engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/datastore/db/PrimaryDataStoreDaoImpl.java
 d35aa44 
  
engine/storage/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/allocator/LocalStoragePoolAllocator.java
 1f61e8b 
  server/test/resources/createNetworkOffering.xml c6228da 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18352/diff/


Testing
---

Tested the folowing scenarios:
attaching local volume with tags
attaching local volume without tags
attaching local volume with different tags
attaching shared volume

Build passes successfully.
Patch applies cleanly.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

RE: Review Request 18683: CLOUDSTACK-6194: Failed to increase Shared network IP Range

2014-03-04 Thread Saksham Srivastava

Thanks, I am still not there :)

-Original Message-
From: Marcus [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:48 AM
To: Saksham Srivastava
Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Sateesh Chodapuneedi
Subject: Re: Review Request 18683: CLOUDSTACK-6194: Failed to increase Shared 
network IP Range

sure, I lose track of who is committer, as many times committers post to 
reviewboard as well if the code is unfamiliar.

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Saksham Srivastava 
 wrote:
> Marcus, as a committer can you kindly commit it too.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:nore...@reviews.apache.org] On Behalf Of 
> Marcus Sorensen
> Sent: Monday, March 3, 2014 10:09 PM
> To: Marcus Sorensen; Sateesh Chodapuneedi
> Cc: Saksham Srivastava; cloudstack
> Subject: Re: Review Request 18683: CLOUDSTACK-6194: Failed to increase 
> Shared network IP Range
>
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18683/#review35970
> ---
>
> Ship it!
>
>
> Ship It!
>
> - Marcus Sorensen
>
>
> On March 3, 2014, 12:53 p.m., Saksham Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> ---
>> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18683/
>> ---
>>
>> (Updated March 3, 2014, 12:53 p.m.)
>>
>>
>> Review request for cloudstack, Marcus Sorensen and Sateesh Chodapuneedi.
>>
>>
>> Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-6194
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6194
>>
>>
>> Repository: cloudstack-git
>>
>>
>> Description
>> ---
>>
>> In case the vlan is passed null to the api or doing it from UI, the new 
>> changes make vlanId as "vlan://untagged"
>>
>> The following code in ConfigurationManagerImpl.java  if (vlans != 
>> null && vlans.size() > 0) {
>>  VlanVO vlan = vlans.get(0);
>>  if (vlanId == null) {
>>  vlanId = vlan.getVlanTag();
>>  } else if 
>> (!NetUtils.isSameIsolationId(vlan.getVlanTag(), vlanId)) {
>>  throw new
>> InvalidParameterValueException("there is already one vlan " +
>> vlan.getVlanTag()
>>
>> starts throwing exception.
>>
>> Fix includes additional check for the modified vlanid.
>> The same checks are in NetUtils.isSameIsolationId() for checking untagged.
>>
>>
>> Diffs
>> -
>>
>>   server/src/com/cloud/configuration/ConfigurationManagerImpl.java
>> d2e5aaa
>>
>> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18683/diff/
>>
>>
>> Testing
>> ---
>>
>> Adding new guest IP range passes smoothly.
>> Adding new public IP ranges passes smoothly.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Saksham Srivastava
>>
>>
>

RE: Review Request 18683: CLOUDSTACK-6194: Failed to increase Shared network IP Range

2014-03-04 Thread Saksham Srivastava

Marcus, as a committer can you kindly commit it too.

-Original Message-
From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:nore...@reviews.apache.org] On Behalf Of Marcus 
Sorensen
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2014 10:09 PM
To: Marcus Sorensen; Sateesh Chodapuneedi
Cc: Saksham Srivastava; cloudstack
Subject: Re: Review Request 18683: CLOUDSTACK-6194: Failed to increase Shared 
network IP Range


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18683/#review35970
---

Ship it!


Ship It!

- Marcus Sorensen


On March 3, 2014, 12:53 p.m., Saksham Srivastava wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18683/
> ---
> 
> (Updated March 3, 2014, 12:53 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack, Marcus Sorensen and Sateesh Chodapuneedi.
> 
> 
> Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-6194
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6194
> 
> 
> Repository: cloudstack-git
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> In case the vlan is passed null to the api or doing it from UI, the new 
> changes make vlanId as "vlan://untagged"
> 
> The following code in ConfigurationManagerImpl.java  if (vlans != null 
> && vlans.size() > 0) {
>  VlanVO vlan = vlans.get(0);
>  if (vlanId == null) {
>  vlanId = vlan.getVlanTag();
>  } else if 
> (!NetUtils.isSameIsolationId(vlan.getVlanTag(), vlanId)) {
>  throw new 
> InvalidParameterValueException("there is already one vlan " + 
> vlan.getVlanTag()
> 
> starts throwing exception.
> 
> Fix includes additional check for the modified vlanid.
> The same checks are in NetUtils.isSameIsolationId() for checking untagged.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   server/src/com/cloud/configuration/ConfigurationManagerImpl.java 
> d2e5aaa
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18683/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Adding new guest IP range passes smoothly.
> Adding new public IP ranges passes smoothly.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Saksham Srivastava
> 
>

Re: Review Request 18352: CLOUDSTACK-6151: Local data disk with tag goes to the wrong local storage pool

2014-03-03 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18352/
---

(Updated March 3, 2014, 1:57 p.m.)


Review request for cloudstack, Koushik Das and Prachi Damle.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-6151
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6151


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description (updated)
---

Attaching a new disk created from local disk offering with tags, to a VM was 
going to wrong local storage pool.
Cause : In LocalStoragePoolAlocator-
List hostPools = _poolHostDao.listByHostId(plan.getHostId());
It return pools by hostId, but nowhere were the tags being compared.

Added new method findLocalStoragePoolsByHostAndTags() that returns stoage pools 
by hostid and tags both.


Diffs (updated)
-

  
engine/schema/resources/META-INF/cloudstack/core/spring-engine-schema-core-daos-context.xml
 ea0bad9 
  
engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/datastore/db/PrimaryDataStoreDao.java
 59c338e 
  
engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/datastore/db/PrimaryDataStoreDaoImpl.java
 d35aa44 
  
engine/storage/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/allocator/LocalStoragePoolAllocator.java
 1f61e8b 
  server/test/resources/createNetworkOffering.xml c6228da 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18352/diff/


Testing (updated)
---

Tested the folowing scenarios:
attaching local volume with tags
attaching local volume without tags
attaching local volume with different tags
attaching shared volume

Build passes successfully.
Patch applies cleanly.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Review Request 18683: CLOUDSTACK-6194: Failed to increase Shared network IP Range

2014-03-03 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18683/
---

Review request for cloudstack, Marcus Sorensen and Sateesh Chodapuneedi.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-6194
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6194


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

In case the vlan is passed null to the api or doing it from UI, the new changes 
make vlanId as "vlan://untagged"

The following code in ConfigurationManagerImpl.java
 if (vlans != null && vlans.size() > 0) {
 VlanVO vlan = vlans.get(0);
 if (vlanId == null) {
 vlanId = vlan.getVlanTag();
 } else if (!NetUtils.isSameIsolationId(vlan.getVlanTag(), 
vlanId)) {
 throw new InvalidParameterValueException("there is 
already one vlan " + vlan.getVlanTag()

starts throwing exception.

Fix includes additional check for the modified vlanid.
The same checks are in NetUtils.isSameIsolationId() for checking untagged.


Diffs
-

  server/src/com/cloud/configuration/ConfigurationManagerImpl.java d2e5aaa 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18683/diff/


Testing
---

Adding new guest IP range passes smoothly.
Adding new public IP ranges passes smoothly.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Re: Review Request 18352: CLOUDSTACK-6151: Local data disk with tag goes to the wrong local storage pool

2014-02-24 Thread Saksham Srivastava



> On Feb. 24, 2014, 7:10 a.m., Koushik Das wrote:
> > engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/datastore/db/PrimaryDataStoreDao.java,
> >  line 118
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/18352/diff/1/?file=46#file46line118>
> >
> > If you specify the host then you don't need dc, pod, cluster.

The reason why I added this was to make sure in case the hostId is passed as 
null, we could return tagged storagePools by calling 
findLocalStoragePoolsByTags.
This is more of an extra check that we should return all hosts with matching 
tags even when host is not passed. 
As suggested it may not be required as there are not other cases where one 
would call this utility.


> On Feb. 24, 2014, 7:10 a.m., Koushik Das wrote:
> > engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/datastore/db/PrimaryDataStoreDaoImpl.java,
> >  line 68
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/18352/diff/1/?file=47#file47line68>
> >
> > I would recommend that you use the createSearchBuilder() approach 
> > instead of hardcoding the sql query. Refer to PrimaryDataStoreDaoImpl() 
> > ctor.

To return local storage pools of matching tags and matching host id requires 
join of 3 tables (storage_pools, storage_host_ref and storage_pool_details). 
Further , all the methods that search for tagged pools in this file are 
currently using the same technique of filling the base sql query with custom 
search parameters, I have also gone the same way.
But as you have mentioned I will update the patch using createSearchBuilder() 
method.


> On Feb. 24, 2014, 7:10 a.m., Koushik Das wrote:
> > engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/datastore/db/PrimaryDataStoreDaoImpl.java,
> >  line 366
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/18352/diff/1/?file=47#file47line366>
> >
> > What is the use case for null host id? Make it long instead of Long.

This is just because I was checking for null hostIds, since the check may not 
be required, I will change it to long.


- Saksham


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18352/#review35257
---


On Feb. 21, 2014, 11:36 a.m., Saksham Srivastava wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18352/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Feb. 21, 2014, 11:36 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack, Koushik Das and Prachi Damle.
> 
> 
> Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-6151
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6151
> 
> 
> Repository: cloudstack-git
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Attaching a disk created from local disk offering with tags, to a VM was 
> going to wrong local storage pool.
> Cause : In LocalStoragePoolAlocator-
> List hostPools = 
> _poolHostDao.listByHostId(plan.getHostId());
> It return pools by hostId, but nowhere were the tags being compared.
> 
> Added new method findLocalStoragePoolsByHostAndTags() that returns stoage 
> pools by hostid and tags both.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   
> engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/datastore/db/PrimaryDataStoreDao.java
>  59c338e 
>   
> engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/datastore/db/PrimaryDataStoreDaoImpl.java
>  d35aa44 
>   
> engine/storage/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/allocator/LocalStoragePoolAllocator.java
>  1f61e8b 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18352/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Tested the folowing scenarios:
> attaching local volume with tags
> attaching local volume without tags
> attaching local volume with different tags
> attaching shared volume
> 
> Build passes successfully.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Saksham Srivastava
> 
>

Review Request 18352: CLOUDSTACK-6151: Local data disk with tag goes to the wrong local storage pool

2014-02-21 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18352/
---

Review request for cloudstack, Koushik Das and Prachi Damle.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-6151
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6151


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

Attaching a disk created from local disk offering with tags, to a VM was going 
to wrong local storage pool.
Cause : In LocalStoragePoolAlocator-
List hostPools = _poolHostDao.listByHostId(plan.getHostId());
It return pools by hostId, but nowhere were the tags being compared.

Added new method findLocalStoragePoolsByHostAndTags() that returns stoage pools 
by hostid and tags both.


Diffs
-

  
engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/datastore/db/PrimaryDataStoreDao.java
 59c338e 
  
engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/datastore/db/PrimaryDataStoreDaoImpl.java
 d35aa44 
  
engine/storage/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/allocator/LocalStoragePoolAllocator.java
 1f61e8b 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18352/diff/


Testing
---

Tested the folowing scenarios:
attaching local volume with tags
attaching local volume without tags
attaching local volume with different tags
attaching shared volume

Build passes successfully.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

RE: [PROPOSAL] Storage OverProvisioning as Per Primary Basis

2014-02-17 Thread Saksham Srivastava

Koushik/Mike,
Thanks for comments.

The current behavior is that we calculate the totalOverProvCapacity 
(storage.overprovisioning.factor * total storage capacity) for the destination 
PS.
When volume is being migrated across PS, the destination PS must have a higher 
totalOverProvCapacity than the expected total allocated space.

This feature will be on same lines as the current behavior except that now the 
storage.overprovisioning.factor will be a configurable parameter for the PS.

I will include this information with more detailed capacity computation along 
with more explanation on upgrade scenarios as soon as cwiki comes up.

As Mike pointed out, we can have Primary Storages at 3 levels : Local Storage 
(HOST), Cluster Storage(CLUSTER) ,  ZWPS (ZONE).
Storage scope was introduced for enhancing Granularity for configuration 
parameters in 4.2, so it would be good to use the same 
as an individual per-primary setting instead of multi scopes.

Thanks,
Saksham

-Original Message-
From: Mike Tutkowski [mailto:mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 4:25 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Storage OverProvisioning as Per Primary Basis

Just a reminder here that primary storage can also be at the zone level as of 
4.2.

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Koushik Das  wrote:

> Please add more details for upgrade scenario. Also can you give some 
> examples as to how the capacity computation is done for operations 
> where the volume gets migrated from one PS to another having different 
> over provisioning factors.
>
> Is there any value add if you give this also at cluster scope?
>
> -Koushik
>
> On 14-Feb-2014, at 2:13 PM, Saksham Srivastava < 
> saksham.srivast...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > CloudStack currently leverages storage overcommit/overprovisioning 
> > by
> specifying global setting storage.overprovisioning.factor
> > I would like to extend the granularity of global params to make 
> > storage
> overprovisioning as a per primary store basis.
> > Also it would allow admin to make more intuitive choice for
> overprovision factor depending upon the actual storage used.
> >
> > Bug Reference : 
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6092
> > Related : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5806
> > FS :
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Storage+OverPro
> visioning+as+Per+Primary+Basis
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Saksham
> >
>
>

--
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the
cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
*(tm)*

[PROPOSAL] Storage OverProvisioning as Per Primary Basis

2014-02-14 Thread Saksham Srivastava

Hi,

CloudStack currently leverages storage overcommit/overprovisioning by 
specifying global setting storage.overprovisioning.factor
I would like to extend the granularity of global params to make storage 
overprovisioning as a per primary store basis.
Also it would allow admin to make more intuitive choice for overprovision 
factor depending upon the actual storage used.

Bug Reference : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6092
Related : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5806
FS : 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Storage+OverProvisioning+as+Per+Primary+Basis

Thanks,
Saksham

Review Request 17840: Patch [master] CLOUDSTACK-5999: Virtual Router does not start if Guest VM is rebooted from CloudStack

2014-02-07 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17840/
---

Review request for cloudstack, John Burwell and Murali Reddy.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-5999
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5999


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

Patch for matser for bug CLOUDSTACK-5999.
The parent review request is at https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/


Diffs
-

  server/src/com/cloud/vm/UserVmManagerImpl.java f6f20cc 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/17840/diff/


Testing
---

Patch applies cleanly.
Build passes.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Re: Review Request 17736: CLOUDSTACK-5999: Virtual Router does not start if Guest VM is rebooted from CloudStack

2014-02-07 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/
---

(Updated Feb. 7, 2014, 9:26 a.m.)


Review request for cloudstack, John Burwell and Murali Reddy.


Changes
---

Updated the patch.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-5999
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5999


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

When a guest is rebooted from CloudStack, if the virtual router managing the 
guest network of that guest is down, CloudStack will not start the virtual 
router.
However the router is started in case the guest vm is stopped and then started.
To mantain similarity between the 2 process it is necessary to start the VR in 
case it is not running.
The fix will address the same.


Diffs (updated)
-

  server/src/com/cloud/vm/UserVmManagerImpl.java 81be19f 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/diff/


Testing
---

Testing:
1) vm in a single guest network :
   vm Reboot : If the VR is stopped: VR is first started and then 
the VM reboots.
   vm Reboot : If the VR is running, VM reboots as it used to.
vm Stop/Start continue to work the same.

2)  vm having nics in multi networks :
   vm Reboot : If VR in any/all network is stopped: VRs are first 
started and then the VM reboots.
   vm Reboot : If the VRs are running, VM reboots as it used to.
vm Stop/Start continue to work the same.

3) vpc :
   Tested the above scenarios for vpc also, works fine.

Patch applies cleanly.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Re: Review Request 17736: CLOUDSTACK-5999: Virtual Router does not start if Guest VM is rebooted from CloudStack

2014-02-07 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/#review33921
---



server/src/com/cloud/vm/UserVmManagerImpl.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/#comment63715>

Thanks John for the comments.
Created single list and now using new utility to grab the domain router for 
the network.


- Saksham Srivastava


On Feb. 5, 2014, 8:46 a.m., Saksham Srivastava wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Feb. 5, 2014, 8:46 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack and Murali Reddy.
> 
> 
> Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-5999
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5999
> 
> 
> Repository: cloudstack-git
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> When a guest is rebooted from CloudStack, if the virtual router managing the 
> guest network of that guest is down, CloudStack will not start the virtual 
> router.
> However the router is started in case the guest vm is stopped and then 
> started.
> To mantain similarity between the 2 process it is necessary to start the VR 
> in case it is not running.
> The fix will address the same.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   server/src/com/cloud/vm/UserVmManagerImpl.java 81be19f 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Testing:
> 1) vm in a single guest network :
>vm Reboot : If the VR is stopped: VR is first started and then 
> the VM reboots.
>vm Reboot : If the VR is running, VM reboots as it used to.
> vm Stop/Start continue to work the same.
> 
> 2)  vm having nics in multi networks :
>vm Reboot : If VR in any/all network is stopped: VRs are first 
> started and then the VM reboots.
>vm Reboot : If the VRs are running, VM reboots as it used to.
> vm Stop/Start continue to work the same.
> 
> 3) vpc :
>Tested the above scenarios for vpc also, works fine.
> 
> Patch applies cleanly.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Saksham Srivastava
> 
>

Review Request 17736: CLOUDSTACK-5999: Virtual Router does not start if Guest VM is rebooted from CloudStack

2014-02-05 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/
---

Review request for cloudstack and Murali Reddy.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-5999
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5999


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

When a guest is rebooted from CloudStack, if the virtual router managing the 
guest network of that guest is down, CloudStack will not start the virtual 
router.
However the router is started in case the guest vm is stopped and then started.
To mantain similarity between the 2 process it is necessary to start the VR in 
case it is not running.
The fix will address the same.


Diffs
-

  server/src/com/cloud/vm/UserVmManagerImpl.java 81be19f 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/17736/diff/


Testing
---

Testing:
1) vm in a single guest network :
   vm Reboot : If the VR is stopped: VR is first started and then 
the VM reboots.
   vm Reboot : If the VR is running, VM reboots as it used to.
vm Stop/Start continue to work the same.

2)  vm having nics in multi networks :
   vm Reboot : If VR in any/all network is stopped: VRs are first 
started and then the VM reboots.
   vm Reboot : If the VRs are running, VM reboots as it used to.
vm Stop/Start continue to work the same.

3) vpc :
   Tested the above scenarios for vpc also, works fine.

Patch applies cleanly.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Review Request 17142: CLOUDSTACK-5916: associateIpAddress" leaves an IP in allocating state

2014-01-21 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17142/
---

Review request for cloudstack and Murali Reddy.


Bugs: 5916
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/5916


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

associateIpAddress leaves an IP in allocating state (user_ip_address table), 
although the API command is executed on incorrectly.

Steps to repro :
1) create a vpc tier.
2) Execute associateIpAddress" API on the vpc tier but do not specify the vpc 
id.
#cloudmonkey
>>associate ipaddress networkid=09ffc45f-beba-4690-8be7-425891915d44
Async job ea020246-d0e8-4e58-ac84-fccb55c3b646 failed
Error 530, Can't assign ip to the network directly when network belongs to 
VPC.Specify vpcId to associate ip address to VPC
accountid = a6ba35b3-7e76-11e3-8490-7614eba325e6
cmd = org.apache.cloudstack.api.command.user.address.AssociateIPAddrCmd
created = 2014-01-21T10:46:46+0530
jobid = ea020246-d0e8-4e58-ac84-fccb55c3b646
jobprocstatus = 0
jobresult:
errorcode = 530
errortext = Can't assign ip to the network directly when network belongs to 
VPC.Specify vpcId to associate ip address to VPC
jobresultcode = 530
jobresulttype = object
jobstatus = 2
userid = a6ba5844-7e76-11e3-8490-7614eba325e6

Expected behavior:
There should be no allocation of IP .

Actual behaviour:
The public IP remains in 'Allocating' state

The fix releases the IP incase of exception.


Diffs
-

  server/src/com/cloud/network/NetworkServiceImpl.java 056190f 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/17142/diff/


Testing
---

Tested the following scenarios:
:8096/client/api?command=associateIpAddress&networkid=09ffc45f-beba-4690-8be7-425891915d44
There is no allocation of public IP (no IP is put in Allocating state in the 
db).
 
:8096/client/api?command=associateIpAddress&networkid=09ffc45f-beba-4690-8be7-425891915d44&vpcid=1
Successfully associates the IP.

Build passes successfully.
Patch applies cleanly.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Re: Review Request 13560: CLOUDSTACK-4021 : Update the test test_explicit_dedication.py according to new changes to dedicated resources

2014-01-17 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/13560/
---

(Updated Jan. 17, 2014, 11:06 a.m.)


Review request for cloudstack, Devdeep Singh, Girish Shilamkar, Prachi Damle, 
and Rayees Namathponnan.


Changes
---

Resubmitting an old patch by removing merge conflicts.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-4021
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4021


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

test_explicit_dedication.py need to modified according to the new changes to 
dedicate resources feature.
Now dedicate a host first and use the created affinity group to deploy vm.


Diffs (updated)
-

  test/integration/component/test_explicit_dedication.py 7aefc21 
  tools/marvin/marvin/integration/lib/common.py 550de1a 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/13560/diff/


Testing
---

test runs successfully whenever an empty host is found.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Re: Review Request 16540: CLOUDSTACK-5692: cleanup API response for primary/secondary storages

2014-01-16 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/16540/
---

(Updated Jan. 16, 2014, 1:52 p.m.)


Review request for cloudstack and Devdeep Singh.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-5692
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5692


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description (updated)
---

Cleanup the API response while listing primary/secondary stores while using 
cifs.
Cleanup logs and remove passwords.


Diffs (updated)
-

  core/src/com/cloud/agent/transport/Request.java cbeb112 
  
plugins/hypervisors/hyperv/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/hyperv/resource/HypervDirectConnectResource.java
 1edfea3 
  server/src/com/cloud/api/query/dao/ImageStoreJoinDaoImpl.java 8022871 
  server/src/com/cloud/api/query/dao/StoragePoolJoinDaoImpl.java 4d2aac2 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/16540/diff/


Testing (updated)
---

Tested locally.

The api response for list doesnot contain passwords:

"listimagestoresresponse" : { "count":1 ,"imagestore" : [  
{"id":"182cfbfd-6343-4f35-804c-6b388fbf6a18","zoneid":"1ae705a4-c9bc-4977-9260-ce128d7fd3d8","zonename":"zone1","name":"secondary1","url":"cifs://10.102.192.151/SMB-Share/saksham/secondary?user=administrator&domain=blr","protocol":"cifs","providername":"NFS","scope":"ZONE","details":[]}
 ] } }

The logs also do not contain passwords :

2014-01-16 18:48:53,288 DEBUG [o.a.c.f.j.i.AsyncJobManagerImpl] 
(Job-Executor-2:ctx-24ee5b9d ctx-b4e28b06) Complete async job-62, jobStatus: 
SUCCEEDED, resultCode: 0, result: 
org.apache.cloudstack.api.response.StoragePoolResponse/storagepool/{"id":"c59cc1c9-8d16-3090-95e7-d5c54839cf2c","zoneid":"1ae705a4-c9bc-4977-9260-ce128d7fd3d8","zonename":"zone1","podid":"bd328cfc-692e-4c8c-8d32-e2a34abaaa37","podname":"pod1","name":"primary1","ipaddress":"10.102.192.150","path":"/SMB-Share/saksham/primary?user\u003dadministrator\u0026domain\u003dblr","created":"2014-01-07T16:28:35+0530","type":"NetworkFilesystem","clusterid":"fc1df888-0e90-45c2-8555-5d4ed61c7bc3","clustername":"cluster1","disksizetotal":500105736192,"disksizeallocated":0,"tags":"sggss","state":"Up","scope":"CLUSTER","jobid":"dfbd2072-48dc-457d-a417-312a74c517f9","jobstatus":0}


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Re: Review Request 16361: CLOUDSTACK-5535: Do not allow addNetwork to create NIC across VPC tiers and Isolated Networks

2014-01-13 Thread Saksham Srivastava



> On Jan. 9, 2014, 6:22 p.m., Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> > Saksham,
> > 
> > The patch fails on 4.3 branch with the error:
> > 
> > Applying: CLOUDSTACK-5535 : Do not allow addNetwork to create NIC across 
> > VPC tiers and Isolated Networks
> > error: patch failed: server/src/com/cloud/vm/UserVmManagerImpl.java:973
> > error: server/src/com/cloud/vm/UserVmManagerImpl.java: patch does not apply
> > Patch failed at 0001 CLOUDSTACK-5535 : Do not allow addNetwork to create 
> > NIC across VPC tiers and Isolated Networks
> > The copy of the patch that failed is found in:
> >/Users/alena/repos/dr/cloudstack/.git/rebase-apply/patch
> > 
> > 
> > Please fix and submit again. Also submit a separate patch for the master 
> > branch, as there are changes in code style that might affect the 
> > cherry-pick.
> 
> Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> Please dont submit again! :-) See my comments on CLOUDSTACK-5535

Discarding as per comments from Marcus and Animesh on the bug.


- Saksham


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/16361/#review31444
---


On Dec. 19, 2013, 5:25 a.m., Saksham Srivastava wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/16361/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Dec. 19, 2013, 5:25 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack and Alena Prokharchyk.
> 
> 
> Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-5535
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5535
> 
> 
> Repository: cloudstack-git
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> addNetworkToVM allows adding any network to VM.
> Ideally a VM running in isolated Guest Network should not be able to add a 
> VPC tier.
> A VM running in VPC tier should not be allowed to add another tier
> A VM running in VPC tier should not be allowed to add another isolated guest 
> network
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   server/src/com/cloud/vm/UserVmManagerImpl.java 3ad49d8 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/16361/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> VM having a nic in isolated guest network cannot add a VPC tier.
> VM having a nic in one VPC tier cannot add another VPC tier.
> VM having a nic in a VPC tier cannot add a isolated guest network.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Saksham Srivastava
> 
>

Review Request 16779: CLOUDSTACK-5535: Disallow cross-tier and isolated networks to be added by addNetwork

2014-01-10 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/16779/
---

Review request for cloudstack and Alena Prokharchyk.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-5535
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5535


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

Patch for master branch for https://reviews.apache.org/r/16361/


Diffs
-

  server/src/com/cloud/vm/UserVmManagerImpl.java 5601118 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/16779/diff/


Testing
---


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

RE: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Sanjay Tripathi

2014-01-09 Thread Saksham Srivastava

Congrats Sanjay.

-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] 
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 4:23 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Sanjay Tripathi

The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache CloudStack has asked Sanjay 
Tripathi to become a committer and we are pleased to announce that they have 
accepted.

Being a committer allows many contributors to contribute more autonomously. For 
developers, it makes it easier to submit changes and eliminates the need to 
have contributions reviewed via the patch submission process. Whether 
contributions are development-related or otherwise, it is a recognition of a 
contributor's participation in the project and commitment to the project and 
the Apache Way.

Please join me in congratulating Sanjay!

--David,
on behalf of the Apache CloudStack PMC

Re: Review Request 16361: CLOUDSTACK-5535: Do not allow addNetwork to create NIC across VPC tiers and Isolated Networks

2014-01-09 Thread Saksham Srivastava



> On Jan. 9, 2014, 12:39 a.m., Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> > One more check is needed: don't let to add vm to VPC network if its already 
> > a part of another VPC network.

This check is already in place unless I am missing something:
if (existingNetwork.getVpcId() != null && network.getGuestType() != 
Network.GuestType.Shared) {
// If the vm is already in VPC and we try to add a new Non shared network (eg. 
VPC or Isolated Network), 
// then throw exception
}


- Saksham


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/16361/#review31417
---


On Dec. 19, 2013, 5:25 a.m., Saksham Srivastava wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/16361/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Dec. 19, 2013, 5:25 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack and Alena Prokharchyk.
> 
> 
> Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-5535
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5535
> 
> 
> Repository: cloudstack-git
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> addNetworkToVM allows adding any network to VM.
> Ideally a VM running in isolated Guest Network should not be able to add a 
> VPC tier.
> A VM running in VPC tier should not be allowed to add another tier
> A VM running in VPC tier should not be allowed to add another isolated guest 
> network
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   server/src/com/cloud/vm/UserVmManagerImpl.java 3ad49d8 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/16361/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> VM having a nic in isolated guest network cannot add a VPC tier.
> VM having a nic in one VPC tier cannot add another VPC tier.
> VM having a nic in a VPC tier cannot add a isolated guest network.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Saksham Srivastava
> 
>

Re: Review Request 14124: CLOUDSTACK-4622 : If a VM from guest network is added to network tier of VPC then IP reservation allows the CIDR to be a superset of Network CIDR for that VPC tier

2014-01-07 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/14124/
---

(Updated Jan. 7, 2014, 11:58 a.m.)


Review request for cloudstack, Jayapal Reddy and Sateesh Chodapuneedi.


Changes
---

Updating patch, resolving conflicts and adding more unit-tests.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-4622
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4622


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

Add a new utility method for comparing 2 CIDRs.
The method takes in 2 cidrs, cidrA and cidrB and returns true if cidrA's IP 
range is equal or a subset of cidrB's IP range.


Diffs (updated)
-

  utils/src/com/cloud/utils/net/NetUtils.java 266a5d1 
  utils/test/com/cloud/utils/net/NetUtilsTest.java b049516 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14124/diff/


Testing
---

Added unit test for the utility.
Tested locally.
Build is successful.
Patch applies cleanly.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

RE: ACS 4.2: list networks returns empty, if a VN is created without net mask

2014-01-03 Thread Saksham Srivastava

This could be a bug, go ahead a file an issue.

Thanks,
Saksham

-Original Message-
From: Vinod Nair [mailto:vinodn...@juniper.net] 
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 5:53 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: ACS 4.2: list networks returns empty, if a VN is created without net 
mask 

Hi Saksham 

The issue here is if we specify the gateway without specifying the net-mask , 
the networks table gets updated with the VN name , but in db  both gateway cidr 
are empty .  list network bails out because if this.


> list zones
count = 1
zone:
name = default
id = 9b5dd877-1fb1-4499-8fec-2baea16ce973
allocationstate = Enabled
dhcpprovider = VirtualRouter
dns1 = 10.84.5.100
dns2 =
domain = ROOT
guestcidraddress = 10.1.0.0/24
internaldns1 = 10.84.5.100
internaldns2 =
ip6dns1 =
ip6dns2 =
localstorageenabled = False
networktype = Advanced
securitygroupsenabled = False
zonetoken = 63b953cc-1dbf-3a03-8aea-ce96319173cc


mysql> select id,name,cidr,gateway  from networks;
+-+--++-+
| id  | name | cidr   | gateway |
+-+--++-+
| 200 | NULL | NULL   | NULL|
| 201 | NULL | NULL   | NULL|
| 202 | NULL | 169.254.0.0/16 | 169.254.0.1 |
| 203 | NULL | NULL   | NULL|
| 204 | VN1  | 10.1.1.0/24| 10.1.1.254  |
| 205 | VN2  | NULL   | NULL|
+-+--++-+



Thanks
Vinod
-Original Message-
From: Saksham Srivastava [mailto:saksham.srivast...@citrix.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 10:21 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: ACS4.2 db goes for a toss if no netmask is specified while 
creating a virtual Network

In general, if you do not specify a  gateway and netmask, the values will be 
taken from the zone level settings.
Check listZones to see your configuration.

Thanks,
Saksham

-Original Message-
From: Vinod Nair [mailto:vinodn...@juniper.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 6:29 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: ACS4.2 db goes for a toss if no netmask is specified while 
creating a virtual Network

Hi 

Root cause is that ACS is allowing to create a VN without a net mask value, 
Whereas list networks command is checking for if cidr value is present or not 
for a network while iterating all networks. If it finds a network without cidr 
it throws Exception and  returns empty

Thanks
Vinod

-Original Message-
From: Vinod Nair [mailto:vinodn...@juniper.net] 
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 11:26 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: ACS4.2 db goes for a toss if no netmask is specified while creating a 
virtual Network

Hi

I have ACS4.2 , If I try creating a virtual network without specifying  a 
netmask, the database goes for a toss..  only way to recover is to delete  the 
entry from the  database manually  or set the CIDR manually as it is set as 
NULL. Is there a fix available for this issue.



# cloudmonkey
? Apache CloudStack ?? cloudmonkey 5.0.0. Type help or ? to list commands.

> list networks
: None


select * from networks where id=207;
+-+--+--+--+--+---+---+-+--+--+-+-++--+-+-+---++--+--+---++--++--++--+-+-+---++-+--+--+-++
| id  | name | uuid | display_text | 
traffic_type | broadcast_domain_type | broadcast_uri | gateway | cidr | mode | 
network_offering_id | physical_network_id | data_center_id | guru_name| 
state   | related | domain_id | account_id | dns1 | dns2 | guru_data | 
set_fields | acl_type | network_domain | reservation_id   | 
guest_type | restart_required | created | removed | 
specify_ip_ranges | vpc_id | ip6_gateway | ip6_cidr | network_cidr | 
display_network | network_acl_id |
+-+--+--+--+--+---+---+-+--+--+-+-++--+-+-+---++--+--+---++--++--++--+-+-+---++-+--+--+-++
| 207 | Vn1  | d1e6ae13-d750-4682-948c-c6545d6c9ace | vn1  | Guest  
  | Lswitch   | NULL  | NULL| NULL | Dhcp | 
 15 | 200 |  1 | Con

Review Request 16540: CLOUDSTACK-5692: cleanup API response for primary/secondary storages

2013-12-31 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/16540/
---

Review request for cloudstack and Devdeep Singh.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-5692
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5692


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

Cleanup the API response while listing primary/secondary stores while using 
cifs.


Diffs
-

  server/src/com/cloud/api/query/dao/ImageStoreJoinDaoImpl.java 8022871 
  server/src/com/cloud/api/query/dao/StoragePoolJoinDaoImpl.java 4d2aac2 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/16540/diff/


Testing
---

Tested locally.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

RE: ACS4.2 db goes for a toss if no netmask is specified while creating a virtual Network

2013-12-30 Thread Saksham Srivastava

In general, if you do not specify a  gateway and netmask, the values will be 
taken from the zone level settings.
Check listZones to see your configuration.

Thanks,
Saksham

-Original Message-
From: Vinod Nair [mailto:vinodn...@juniper.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 6:29 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: ACS4.2 db goes for a toss if no netmask is specified while 
creating a virtual Network

Hi 

Root cause is that ACS is allowing to create a VN without a net mask value, 
Whereas list networks command is checking for if cidr value is present or not 
for a network while iterating all networks. If it finds a network without cidr 
it throws Exception and  returns empty

Thanks
Vinod

-Original Message-
From: Vinod Nair [mailto:vinodn...@juniper.net] 
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 11:26 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: ACS4.2 db goes for a toss if no netmask is specified while creating a 
virtual Network

Hi

I have ACS4.2 , If I try creating a virtual network without specifying  a 
netmask, the database goes for a toss..  only way to recover is to delete  the 
entry from the  database manually  or set the CIDR manually as it is set as 
NULL. Is there a fix available for this issue.



# cloudmonkey
? Apache CloudStack ?? cloudmonkey 5.0.0. Type help or ? to list commands.

> list networks
: None


select * from networks where id=207;
+-+--+--+--+--+---+---+-+--+--+-+-++--+-+-+---++--+--+---++--++--++--+-+-+---++-+--+--+-++
| id  | name | uuid | display_text | 
traffic_type | broadcast_domain_type | broadcast_uri | gateway | cidr | mode | 
network_offering_id | physical_network_id | data_center_id | guru_name| 
state   | related | domain_id | account_id | dns1 | dns2 | guru_data | 
set_fields | acl_type | network_domain | reservation_id   | 
guest_type | restart_required | created | removed | 
specify_ip_ranges | vpc_id | ip6_gateway | ip6_cidr | network_cidr | 
display_network | network_acl_id |
+-+--+--+--+--+---+---+-+--+--+-+-++--+-+-+---++--+--+---++--++--++--+-+-+---++-+--+--+-++
| 207 | Vn1  | d1e6ae13-d750-4682-948c-c6545d6c9ace | vn1  | Guest  
  | Lswitch   | NULL  | NULL| NULL | Dhcp | 
 15 | 200 |  1 | ContrailGuru | Implemented |   
  207 | 1 |  2 | NULL | NULL | NULL  |  0 | Account 
 | NULL   | e7f881be-c9d8-4ff1-8fce-26d207426b45 | Isolated   | 
   0 | 2013-12-30 16:10:46 | NULL| 0 |   NULL | NULL
| NULL | NULL |   1 |   NULL |
+-+--+--+--+--+---+---+-+--+--+-+-++--+-+-+---++--+--+---++--++--++--+-+-+---++-+--+--+-++
1 row in set (0.00 sec)



Thanks
Vinod

Re: Review Request 14124: CLOUDSTACK-4622 : If a VM from guest network is added to network tier of VPC then IP reservation allows the CIDR to be a superset of Network CIDR for that VPC tier

2013-12-30 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/14124/
---

(Updated Dec. 30, 2013, 3:22 p.m.)


Review request for cloudstack, Jayapal Reddy and Sateesh Chodapuneedi.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-4622
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4622


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

Add a new utility method for comparing 2 CIDRs.
The method takes in 2 cidrs, cidrA and cidrB and returns true if cidrA's IP 
range is equal or a subset of cidrB's IP range.


Diffs (updated)
-

  utils/src/com/cloud/utils/net/NetUtils.java a315b93 
  utils/test/com/cloud/utils/net/NetUtilsTest.java 3cfc98f 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14124/diff/


Testing
---

Added unit test for the utility.
Tested locally.
Build is successful.
Patch applies cleanly.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Re: Review Request 16456: prepended the description of storage.overprovisioning.factor with NFS only as this feature works only with NFS


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/16456/#review30853
---


Rajani, storage.overprovisioning.factor works for VMFS also.
Please have a look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5061

- Saksham Srivastava


On Dec. 24, 2013, 1:20 p.m., Rajani Karuturi wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/16456/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Dec. 24, 2013, 1:20 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack, Abhinandan Prateek and Jayapal Reddy.
> 
> 
> Repository: cloudstack-git
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> prepended the description of storage.overprovisioning.factor with NFS 
> only as this feature works only with NFS
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   engine/components-api/src/com/cloud/capacity/CapacityManager.java 0cda826 
>   setup/db/db/schema-421to430.sql 574f510 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/16456/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> manually tested
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rajani Karuturi
> 
>

RE: Faulty method isNetworkAWithinNetworkB ?

Thanks Jayapal for reviewing.

I have updated the patch.
Now isNetworkAWithinNetworkB method uses IP ranges of cidrs  for comparison.
Also updated the unittests for the same.

Thanks,
Saksham

-Original Message-
From: Jayapal Reddy Uradi [mailto:jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 6:03 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: Faulty method isNetworkAWithinNetworkB ?

Hi Saksham,

Always the higher suffix cidr will be in lower suffix cidr.
10.1.1.0/24 will have 256 addresses and 10.1.1.0/25 will have 128 addresses[1].

/25 will be completely in /24 but not wise versa. 

The below are incorrect.
> isNetworkAWithinNetworkB("10.1.1.0/24", "10.1.1.0/25") returns true 
> isNetworkAWithinNetworkB("10.1.1.0/22", "10.1.1.0/23") returns true

I think you can change isNetworkAWithinNetworkB method to compare respective ip 
ranges for cidrs.

What about changing method name isNetworkACompletelyWithinNetworkB() ?

[1]https://www.dan.me.uk/ipsubnets?ip=10.1.1.0


Thanks,
Jayapal

On 13-Dec-2013, at 4:49 PM, Saksham Srivastava  
wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I encountered a method isNetworkAWithinNetworkB(cidrA, cidrB) in 
> NetUtils.java which should return true if cidrA is a subset of cidrB.
> The method returns flawed output in many scenarios. After unittesting it I 
> found :
> 
> isNetworkAWithinNetworkB("10.1.1.0/24", "10.1.1.0/25") returns true 
> isNetworkAWithinNetworkB("10.1.1.0/25", "10.1.1.0/24") returns true 
> isNetworkAWithinNetworkB("10.1.1.0/23", "10.1.1.0/22") returns true 
> isNetworkAWithinNetworkB("10.1.1.0/22", "10.1.1.0/23") returns true
> 
> Due to this I am able to create VPC tiers with cidr 10.1.0.0/24 even 
> when the VPC super cidr has been defined as 10.1.1.0/25 IMO the 
> simpler/cleaner way to compare cidrs should be to compare the respective IP 
> ranges. I have an old patch [1] in RB which uses the IP ranges to compare 2 
> cidrs.
> We could leverage that to replace isNetworkAWithinNetworkB() or in case of 
> any other suggestions please share.
> 
> Thanks,
> Saksham
> 
> [1] https://reviews.apache.org/r/14124/diff/#index_header
>

Re: Review Request 14124: CLOUDSTACK-4622 : If a VM from guest network is added to network tier of VPC then IP reservation allows the CIDR to be a superset of Network CIDR for that VPC tier


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/14124/
---

(Updated Dec. 24, 2013, 9:20 a.m.)


Review request for cloudstack, Jayapal Reddy and Sateesh Chodapuneedi.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-4622
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4622


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

Add a new utility method for comparing 2 CIDRs.
The method takes in 2 cidrs, cidrA and cidrB and returns true if cidrA's IP 
range is equal or a subset of cidrB's IP range.


Diffs
-

  utils/src/com/cloud/utils/net/NetUtils.java f6f6285 
  utils/test/com/cloud/utils/net/NetUtilsTest.java c7407bf 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14124/diff/


Testing
---

Added unit test for the utility.
Tested locally.
Build is successful.
Patch applies cleanly.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Re: Review Request 14124: CLOUDSTACK-4622 : If a VM from guest network is added to network tier of VPC then IP reservation allows the CIDR to be a superset of Network CIDR for that VPC tier


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/14124/
---

(Updated Dec. 24, 2013, 9:18 a.m.)


Review request for cloudstack and Sateesh Chodapuneedi.


Changes
---

Modified isNetworkAWithinNetworkB to compare IP ranges.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-4622
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4622


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

Add a new utility method for comparing 2 CIDRs.
The method takes in 2 cidrs, cidrA and cidrB and returns true if cidrA's IP 
range is equal or a subset of cidrB's IP range.


Diffs (updated)
-

  utils/src/com/cloud/utils/net/NetUtils.java f6f6285 
  utils/test/com/cloud/utils/net/NetUtilsTest.java c7407bf 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14124/diff/


Testing
---

Added unit test for the utility.
Tested locally.
Build is successful.
Patch applies cleanly.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Review Request 16361: CLOUDSTACK-5535: Do not allow addNetwork to create NIC across VPC tiers and Isolated Networks

2013-12-18 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/16361/
---

Review request for cloudstack and Alena Prokharchyk.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-5535
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5535


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

addNetworkToVM allows adding any network to VM.
Ideally a VM running in isolated Guest Network should not be able to add a VPC 
tier.
A VM running in VPC tier should not be allowed to add another tier
A VM running in VPC tier should not be allowed to add another isolated guest 
network


Diffs
-

  server/src/com/cloud/vm/UserVmManagerImpl.java 3ad49d8 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/16361/diff/


Testing
---

VM having a nic in isolated guest network cannot add a VPC tier.
VM having a nic in one VPC tier cannot add another VPC tier.
VM having a nic in a VPC tier cannot add a isolated guest network.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

Faulty method isNetworkAWithinNetworkB ?

2013-12-13 Thread Saksham Srivastava

Hi,

I encountered a method isNetworkAWithinNetworkB(cidrA, cidrB) in NetUtils.java 
which should return true if cidrA is a subset of cidrB.
The method returns flawed output in many scenarios. After unittesting it I 
found :

isNetworkAWithinNetworkB("10.1.1.0/24", "10.1.1.0/25") returns true
isNetworkAWithinNetworkB("10.1.1.0/25", "10.1.1.0/24") returns true
isNetworkAWithinNetworkB("10.1.1.0/23", "10.1.1.0/22") returns true
isNetworkAWithinNetworkB("10.1.1.0/22", "10.1.1.0/23") returns true

Due to this I am able to create VPC tiers with cidr 10.1.0.0/24 even when the 
VPC super cidr has been defined as 10.1.1.0/25
IMO the simpler/cleaner way to compare cidrs should be to compare the 
respective IP ranges. I have an old patch [1] in RB which uses the IP ranges to 
compare 2 cidrs.
We could leverage that to replace isNetworkAWithinNetworkB() or in case of any 
other suggestions please share.

Thanks,
Saksham

[1] https://reviews.apache.org/r/14124/diff/#index_header

Re: Review Request 14124: CLOUDSTACK-4622 : If a VM from guest network is added to network tier of VPC then IP reservation allows the CIDR to be a superset of Network CIDR for that VPC tier

2013-12-09 Thread Saksham Srivastava


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/14124/
---

(Updated Dec. 9, 2013, 11:30 a.m.)


Review request for cloudstack and Sateesh Chodapuneedi.


Changes
---

Updating a three month old patch as it was not applying cleanly on master.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-4622
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4622


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

Add a new utility method for comparing 2 CIDRs.
The method takes in 2 cidrs, cidrA and cidrB and returns true if cidrA's IP 
range is equal or a subset of cidrB's IP range.


Diffs (updated)
-

  server/src/com/cloud/network/NetworkServiceImpl.java 6855587 
  utils/src/com/cloud/utils/net/NetUtils.java c0c792f 
  utils/test/com/cloud/utils/net/NetUtilsTest.java c7407bf 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14124/diff/


Testing
---

Added unit test for the utility.
Tested locally.
Build is successful.
Patch applies cleanly.


Thanks,

Saksham Srivastava

RE: https://reviews.apache.org/ down ??

The issue is fixed now:
=

 [ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7076?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

jan iversen closed INFRA-7076.
--

Resolution: Fixed
  Assignee: jan iversen

/dev/sda1 was "inconsistent", a manual fsck on the console solved the problem.

Site is up and running.

syslog has not been examined.

> Apache review board is inaccessible
> ---
>
> Key: INFRA-7076
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7076
> Project: Infrastructure
>  Issue Type: Bug
>  Components: ReviewBoard
>    Reporter: Saksham Srivastava
>Assignee: jan iversen
>Priority: Critical
>
> https://reviews.apache.org/ is showing proxy server error.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)

-Original Message-
From: Hugo Trippaers [mailto:trip...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 4:00 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Syed Ahmed
Subject: Re: https://reviews.apache.org/ down ??

Great!

Cheers,
Hugo

Sent from my iPhone

> On 6 dec. 2013, at 10:17, Saksham Srivastava  
> wrote:
> 
> Also raised https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7076
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Radhika Puthiyetath [mailto:radhika.puthiyet...@citrix.com] 
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 3:41 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Syed Ahmed
> Subject: RE: https://reviews.apache.org/ down ??
> 
> http://monitoring.apache.org/status/ shows Red. They should fix this soon.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Hugo Trippaers [mailto:trip...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 3:34 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Syed Ahmed; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: https://reviews.apache.org/ down ??
> 
> Saksham,
> 
> This is apache infrastructure, so not much we can do directly. Did you check 
> if apache infra is aware of the problem?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Hugo
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 6 dec. 2013, at 09:56, Saksham Srivastava  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Can someone kindly look into this.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Saksham
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Syed Ahmed [mailto:sah...@cloudops.com] 
>> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 3:07 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: Saksham Srivastava
>> Subject: Re: https://reviews.apache.org/ down ??
>> 
>> Me too. I get a 502 proxy error.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri 06 Dec 2013 04:32:19 AM EST, Saksham Srivastava wrote:
>>> Is anyone else also having the same problem?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Saksham
>> 
>>

RE: https://reviews.apache.org/ down ??

Also raised https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7076


-Original Message-
From: Radhika Puthiyetath [mailto:radhika.puthiyet...@citrix.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 3:41 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Syed Ahmed
Subject: RE: https://reviews.apache.org/ down ??

http://monitoring.apache.org/status/ shows Red. They should fix this soon.

-Original Message-
From: Hugo Trippaers [mailto:trip...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 3:34 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Syed Ahmed; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: https://reviews.apache.org/ down ??

Saksham,

This is apache infrastructure, so not much we can do directly. Did you check if 
apache infra is aware of the problem?

Cheers,

Hugo

Sent from my iPhone

> On 6 dec. 2013, at 09:56, Saksham Srivastava  
> wrote:
> 
> Can someone kindly look into this.
> 
> Thanks,
> Saksham
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Syed Ahmed [mailto:sah...@cloudops.com] 
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 3:07 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Saksham Srivastava
> Subject: Re: https://reviews.apache.org/ down ??
> 
> Me too. I get a 502 proxy error.
> 
> 
>> On Fri 06 Dec 2013 04:32:19 AM EST, Saksham Srivastava wrote:
>> Is anyone else also having the same problem?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Saksham
> 
>

RE: https://reviews.apache.org/ down ??

Can someone kindly look into this.

Thanks,
Saksham

-Original Message-
From: Syed Ahmed [mailto:sah...@cloudops.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 3:07 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Saksham Srivastava
Subject: Re: https://reviews.apache.org/ down ??

Me too. I get a 502 proxy error.


On Fri 06 Dec 2013 04:32:19 AM EST, Saksham Srivastava wrote:
> Is anyone else also having the same problem?
>
> Thanks,
> Saksham
>
>

https://reviews.apache.org/ down ??