Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC3

2015-02-09 Thread Nux! 
Daan,

That's fine. There were no critical issues to be addressed really by a 4.4.3 
AFAIK.
Let's get 4.5 right. :)

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

- Original Message -
> From: "Daan Hoogland" 
> To: "dev" 
> Sent: Monday, 9 February, 2015 07:29:13
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC3

> Gents,
> 
> 4.4.3 vote was never formally closed. Do we need to continue? If so I
> will create a new rc!
> 
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Mike Tutkowski
>  wrote:
>> FYI: I have resolved and closed out
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8233.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Mike Tutkowski >> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is the newly created bug:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8233
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Mike Tutkowski <
>>> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>>
 -1

 Marcus and I are working on a fix for not being able to create VMs on KVM
 due to kvmclock not being recognized by older versions of Libvirt.

 I have most of the testing done. I should be done with the rest of it
 today and can check this code in.

 I don't think we have a ticket for this, so I'll go ahead and create one.

 Thanks (and sorry for the need for a subsequent RC)!

 On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 12:01 AM, David Nalley  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I've created yet another 4.5.0 release candidate, with the following
> artifacts up for a vote:
>
> Git Branch and Commit SH:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.5-RC20150208T0646
> Commit: 187935a0e3c68e01ed33a8f7f0e6d69e6cdb0aca
>
> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same
> location):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.5.0-rc3/
>
> PGP release keys (signed using 0x6fe50f1c):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
> indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
>
> --David
>



 --
 *Mike Tutkowski*
 *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
 e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
 o: 303.746.7302
 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
 *™*

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
>>> o: 303.746.7302
>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
>>> *™*
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
>> o: 303.746.7302
>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
>> *™*
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Daan

Usage Records not Generating.

2015-02-09 Thread raja sekhar 
Hi All,

I am using CloudStack 4.3.1.Previously the usage records are generated,but
when i observed recently the usage records are not generating.The usage
records ends at 2014-12-27

mysql>select * from job_usage\G

id: 79
host: testcs01.test.local/xx.xx.xx.xx
 pid: 1675
job_type: 0
   scheduled: 0
start_millis: 141963840
  end_millis: 141972479
   exec_time: 963
  start_date: 2014-12-27 00:00:00
end_date: 2014-12-27 23:59:59
 success: 1
   heartbeat: 2014-12-28 07:14:50

This is last record i found in usage_job.

when i manually generate the usage records from cloudmonkey,it shows
"success", but the usage records are not generated in cloud_usage table.

cloudmonkey> generate usagerecords startdate=2014-12-28 enddate=2015-02-08
success = true

I found an entry in cloud_job table,after generating usage records through
cloudmonkey.

id: 80
host: NULL
 pid: 0
job_type: 1
   scheduled: 0
start_millis: 0
  end_millis: 0
   exec_time: 0
  start_date: NULL
end_date: NULL
 success: NULL
   heartbeat: 2015-02-09 09:12:20

it is showing host "NULL".

Any Suggestions??


Regards,
Rajasekhar.

Re: Usage Records not Generating.

2015-02-09 Thread Wei ZHOU 
anything in /var/log/cloudstack/usage/usage.log ?
I guess log4j-cloud.xml is missing ? (it should be log4j-cloud.xml , not
log4j-cloud-usage.xml)

2015-02-09 10:47 GMT+01:00 raja sekhar :

> Hi All,
>
> I am using CloudStack 4.3.1.Previously the usage records are generated,but
> when i observed recently the usage records are not generating.The usage
> records ends at 2014-12-27
>
> mysql>select * from job_usage\G
>
> id: 79
> host: testcs01.test.local/xx.xx.xx.xx
>  pid: 1675
> job_type: 0
>scheduled: 0
> start_millis: 141963840
>   end_millis: 141972479
>exec_time: 963
>   start_date: 2014-12-27 00:00:00
> end_date: 2014-12-27 23:59:59
>  success: 1
>heartbeat: 2014-12-28 07:14:50
>
> This is last record i found in usage_job.
>
> when i manually generate the usage records from cloudmonkey,it shows
> "success", but the usage records are not generated in cloud_usage table.
>
> cloudmonkey> generate usagerecords startdate=2014-12-28 enddate=2015-02-08
> success = true
>
> I found an entry in cloud_job table,after generating usage records through
> cloudmonkey.
>
> id: 80
> host: NULL
>  pid: 0
> job_type: 1
>scheduled: 0
> start_millis: 0
>   end_millis: 0
>exec_time: 0
>   start_date: NULL
> end_date: NULL
>  success: NULL
>heartbeat: 2015-02-09 09:12:20
>
> it is showing host "NULL".
>
> Any Suggestions??
>
>
> Regards,
> Rajasekhar.
>

Review Request 30793: CLOUDSTACK-8235: Fixed test case in test_bugs.py to read variable data from configurableData section of test_data.py an d also fixed wrong parameter name

2015-02-09 Thread Gaurav Aradhye 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30793/
---

Review request for cloudstack and SrikanteswaraRao Talluri.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-8235
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8235


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

Changes:
1. Corrected paramater name podId to podid while adding externally managed 
cluster in vmware
2. Specified detailed imports
3. Moved the vmware_cluster dict to configurableData section.
4. Pep8 fuixes.


Diffs
-

  test/integration/component/maint/test_bugs.py 160cd1d 
  tools/marvin/marvin/config/test_data.py d5ed353 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30793/diff/


Testing
---

Did not test the actual adding cluster scenario. But the "Invalid parameter" 
error is gone.
Test case needs to be run against proper data (vmware_cluster information).

Checked the static errors and imports with pyflakes and python command.


Thanks,

Gaurav Aradhye

Re: Can System VMs be migrated?

2015-02-09 Thread Rafael Weingartner 
That is the answer I wanted to hear.  If we can migrate system VMs, why are
the systems VMs’ VDI allocated in the local SR on Xen hypervisor?

It is not possible to migrate those system VMs, hence they are using a
local SR.

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Sanjeev Neelarapu <
sanjeev.neelar...@citrix.com> wrote:

> Yes, we can.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rafael Weingartner [mailto:rafaelweingart...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 2:41 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Can System VMs be migrated?
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I was wondering, can we migrate systems vms from a host to another one in
> the same cluster?
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingärtner
>



-- 
Rafael Weingärtner

Re: Usage Records not Generating.

2015-02-09 Thread raja sekhar 
Hi Wei,

Thanks for your reply.
I have found the file in "cd /etc/cloudstack/management/log4j-cloud.xml"
and "cd /etc/cloudstack/usage/log4j-cloud.xml".it is same as you told.

The log file i have captured in "/var/log/cloudstack/usage/usage.log" is:


2014-12-28 07:15:05,773 DEBUG [db.Transaction.Transaction]
(Usage-Job-1:null) Transaction is not closed properly:
-UsageEventDaoImpl.getRecentEvents:99-ComponentInstantiationPostProcessor$InterceptorDispatcher.intercept:125-UsageManagerImpl.parse:556-UsageManagerImpl.runInContextInternal:349-UsageManagerImpl$1.runInContext:291-ManagedContextRunnable$1.run:49-DefaultManagedContext$1.call:56-DefaultManagedContext.callWithContext:103-DefaultManagedContext.runWithContext:53-ManagedContextRunnable.run:46-UsageManagerImpl.run:288-Executors$RunnableAdapter.call:471
:
-UsageEventDaoImpl.getRecentEvents:99-ComponentInstantiationPostProcessor$InterceptorDispatcher.intercept:125-UsageManagerImpl.parse:556-UsageManagerImpl.runInContextInternal:349-UsageManagerImpl$1.runInContext:291-ManagedContextRunnable$1.run:49-DefaultManagedContext$1.call:56-DefaultManagedContext.callWithContext:103-DefaultManagedContext.runWithContext:53-ManagedContextRunnable.run:46-UsageManagerImpl.run:288-Executors$RunnableAdapter.call:471,
.  Called by
-TransactionLegacy.open:166-TransactionLegacy.open:126-UsageManagerImpl.parse:786-UsageManagerImpl.runInContextInternal:349-UsageManagerImpl$1.runInContext:291-ManagedContextRunnable$1.run:49-DefaultManagedContext$1.call:56-DefaultManagedContext.callWithContext:103-DefaultManagedContext.runWithContext:53-ManagedContextRunnable.run:46-UsageManagerImpl.run:288-Executors$RunnableAdapter.call:471
2014-12-28 07:15:05,776 INFO  [cloud.usage.UsageManagerImpl]
(Usage-Job-1:null) usage job complete
2014-12-29 06:39:27,416 INFO
 [context.support.ClassPathXmlApplicationContext] (main:null) Refreshing
org.springframework.context.support.ClassPathXmlApplicationContext@1055e55f:
startup date [Sun Dec 28 22:39:27 PST 2014]; root of context hierarchy
2014-12-29 06:39:27,664 INFO  [factory.xml.XmlBeanDefinitionReader]
(main:null) Loading XML bean definitions from class path resource
[usageApplicationContext.xml]
2014-12-29 06:39:28,929 INFO
 [context.annotation.ClassPathBeanDefinitionScanner] (main:null) JSR-330
'javax.inject.Named' annotation found and supported for component scanning
2014-12-29 06:39:30,436 INFO
 [factory.annotation.AutowiredAnnotationBeanPostProcessor] (main:null)
JSR-330 'javax.inject.Inject' annotation found and supported for autowiring
2014-12-29 06:39:30,912 INFO
 [context.support.ClassPathXmlApplicationContext] (main:null) Bean
'transactionContextBuilder' of type [class
com.cloud.utils.db.TransactionContextBuilder] is not eligible for getting
processed by all BeanPostProcessors (for example: not eligible for
auto-proxying)
2014-12-29 06:39:30,992 INFO  [factory.support.DefaultListableBeanFactory]
(main:null) Pre-instantiating singletons in
org.springframework.beans.factory.support.DefaultListableBeanFactory@259e215b:
defining beans
[org.springframework.context.annotation.internalConfigurationAnnotationProcessor,org.springframework.context.annotation.internalAutowiredAnnotationProcessor,org.springframework.context.annotation.internalRequiredAnnotationProcessor,org.springframework.context.annotation.internalCommonAnnotationProcessor,volumeUsageParser,vmDiskUsageParser,portForwardingUsageParser,networkOfferingUsageParser,storageUsageParser,securityGroupUsageParser,VMInstanceUsageParser,IPAddressUsageParser,VPNUserUsageParser,VMSnapshotUsageParser,loadBalancerUsageParser,networkUsageParser,usageAlertManagerImpl,usageManagerImpl,usageVMSnapshotDaoImpl,usageStorageDaoImpl,usageVmDiskDaoImpl,usageNetworkOfferingDaoImpl,usageVPNUserDaoImpl,usageSecurityGroupDaoImpl,usageIPAddressDaoImpl,usageDaoImpl,externalPublicIpStatisticsDaoImpl,usageVMInstanceDaoImpl,usagePortForwardingRuleDaoImpl,usageVolumeDaoImpl,usageNetworkDaoImpl,usageLoadBalancerPolicyDaoImpl,usageJobDaoImpl,usageEventDaoImpl,usageEventDetailsDaoImpl,eventDaoImpl,eventJoinDaoImpl,SSHKeyPairDaoImpl,userStatisticsDaoImpl,userStatsLogDaoImpl,userDaoImpl,userAccountDaoImpl,accountDaoImpl,vmDiskStatisticsDaoImpl,resourceCountDaoImpl,resourceLimitDaoImpl,alertDaoImpl,domainDaoImpl,configurationDaoImpl,transactionContextBuilder,instantiatePostProcessor,ComponentContext,org.springframework.context.annotation.ConfigurationClassPostProcessor.importAwareProcessor];
root of factory hierarchy
2014-12-29 06:39:31,807 DEBUG [utils.crypt.EncryptionSecretKeyChecker]
(main:null) Encryption Type: file
2014-12-29 06:39:31,814 INFO  [db.Transaction.Transaction] (main:null) Is
Data Base High Availiability enabled? Ans : true
2014-12-29 06:39:31,969 INFO  [db.Transaction.Transaction] (main:null) The
slaves configured for Cloud Data base is/are : 10.0.60.204
2014-12-29 06:39:36,673 INFO  [utils.component.ComponentContext]
(main:null) Setup Spring Application context
2014-12-29 06:39:41,113 INFO  [utils.compo

Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC3

2015-02-09 Thread Ian Duffy 
+0 (no point voting with -1s above)

Tested this using Devcloud4 on an advanced zone worked without issue,
environment came up, template downloaded was able to create a VM and a
egress rule to allow outbound connectivity. Great to see the xen
server networking label stuff fixed, this caused some issues for me
with automating things with marvin (hence why devcloud4 advance didn't
work with 4.4).

If anyone is interested: (assumes you've read the docs for devcloud4,
installed berkshelf/chef-dk, setup the vboxnet adapters)

git clone g...@github.com:imduffy15/devcloud4.git
cd binary-installation-advanced
vagrant up


On 9 February 2015 at 09:02, Nux!  wrote:
> Daan,
>
> That's fine. There were no critical issues to be addressed really by a 4.4.3 
> AFAIK.
> Let's get 4.5 right. :)
>
> --
> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>
> Nux!
> www.nux.ro
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Daan Hoogland" 
>> To: "dev" 
>> Sent: Monday, 9 February, 2015 07:29:13
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC3
>
>> Gents,
>>
>> 4.4.3 vote was never formally closed. Do we need to continue? If so I
>> will create a new rc!
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Mike Tutkowski
>>  wrote:
>>> FYI: I have resolved and closed out
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8233.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Mike Tutkowski >>> wrote:
>>>
 Here is the newly created bug:

 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8233

 On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Mike Tutkowski <
 mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:

> -1
>
> Marcus and I are working on a fix for not being able to create VMs on KVM
> due to kvmclock not being recognized by older versions of Libvirt.
>
> I have most of the testing done. I should be done with the rest of it
> today and can check this code in.
>
> I don't think we have a ticket for this, so I'll go ahead and create one.
>
> Thanks (and sorry for the need for a subsequent RC)!
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 12:01 AM, David Nalley  wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've created yet another 4.5.0 release candidate, with the following
>> artifacts up for a vote:
>>
>> Git Branch and Commit SH:
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.5-RC20150208T0646
>> Commit: 187935a0e3c68e01ed33a8f7f0e6d69e6cdb0aca
>>
>> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same
>> location):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.5.0-rc3/
>>
>> PGP release keys (signed using 0x6fe50f1c):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>
>> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>
>> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
>> indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>>
>> [ ] +1  approve
>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>>
>> --David
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Mike Tutkowski*
> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> o: 303.746.7302
> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> *™*
>



 --
 *Mike Tutkowski*
 *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
 e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
 o: 303.746.7302
 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
 *™*

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
>>> o: 303.746.7302
>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
>>> *™*
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan

Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC3

2015-02-09 Thread Abhinandan Prateek 
Yes, with -1s no point voting further.

Tested local storage in Advance zone.
Live VM migration is working with local storage (Xen 6.5 cluster) that was 
broken in RC1, and RC2.

-abhi


> On 09-Feb-2015, at 6:27 pm, Ian Duffy  wrote:
>
> +0 (no point voting with -1s above)
>
> Tested this using Devcloud4 on an advanced zone worked without issue,
> environment came up, template downloaded was able to create a VM and a
> egress rule to allow outbound connectivity. Great to see the xen
> server networking label stuff fixed, this caused some issues for me
> with automating things with marvin (hence why devcloud4 advance didn't
> work with 4.4).
>
> If anyone is interested: (assumes you've read the docs for devcloud4,
> installed berkshelf/chef-dk, setup the vboxnet adapters)
>
> git clone g...@github.com:imduffy15/devcloud4.git
> cd binary-installation-advanced
> vagrant up
>
>
> On 9 February 2015 at 09:02, Nux!  wrote:
>> Daan,
>>
>> That's fine. There were no critical issues to be addressed really by a 4.4.3 
>> AFAIK.
>> Let's get 4.5 right. :)
>>
>> --
>> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>>
>> Nux!
>> www.nux.ro
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Daan Hoogland" 
>>> To: "dev" 
>>> Sent: Monday, 9 February, 2015 07:29:13
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC3
>>
>>> Gents,
>>>
>>> 4.4.3 vote was never formally closed. Do we need to continue? If so I
>>> will create a new rc!
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Mike Tutkowski
>>>  wrote:
 FYI: I have resolved and closed out
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8233.

 On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Mike Tutkowski 
  wrote:

> Here is the newly created bug:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8233
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Mike Tutkowski <
> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>
>> -1
>>
>> Marcus and I are working on a fix for not being able to create VMs on KVM
>> due to kvmclock not being recognized by older versions of Libvirt.
>>
>> I have most of the testing done. I should be done with the rest of it
>> today and can check this code in.
>>
>> I don't think we have a ticket for this, so I'll go ahead and create one.
>>
>> Thanks (and sorry for the need for a subsequent RC)!
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 12:01 AM, David Nalley  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I've created yet another 4.5.0 release candidate, with the following
>>> artifacts up for a vote:
>>>
>>> Git Branch and Commit SH:
>>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.5-RC20150208T0646
>>> Commit: 187935a0e3c68e01ed33a8f7f0e6d69e6cdb0aca
>>>
>>> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same
>>> location):
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.5.0-rc3/
>>>
>>> PGP release keys (signed using 0x6fe50f1c):
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>>
>>> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>>
>>> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
>>> indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>>>
>>> [ ] +1  approve
>>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>>
>>>
>>> --David
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
>> o: 303.746.7302
>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
>> *™*
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Mike Tutkowski*
> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> o: 303.746.7302
> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> *™*
>



 --
 *Mike Tutkowski*
 *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
 e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
 o: 303.746.7302
 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
 *™*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daan

Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services

IaaS Cloud Design & Build
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework
CloudStack Consulting
CloudStack Software 
Engineering
CloudStack Infrastructure 
Support
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses

This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended 
solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or 
opinions expressed a

Fwd: How to Setup CS 4.5 Testing on VirtualBox

2015-02-09 Thread Keerthiraja SJ 
Hi All,

I am testing on CentOS 6.5. Now I am stuck while the primary storage adding

Something went wrong; please correct the following:
Failed to add data store: Can not create storage pool through host 1 due to
Catch Exception com.cloud.utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException, create
StoragePool failed due to com.cloud.utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException:
Unable to create NFS SR Pool[2|10.10.100.11:2049|/Primary] on
host:a4e0efec-d177-45ef-b5e4-d449aca2bdfa pool: 10.10.100.11/Primary

I could not able to ping 10.10.100.11 from xenserver.
I added the IPaddress vi xencenter.

serverInterface   Network  NIC  IPSetup  IPAddress
Subnet Gateway
Xenserver01 Management   MGMT   NIC0 static 192.168.56.12
255.255.255.0 192.168.56.1
xenserver02 PRI-STOR PRI-STORAGE  NIC3 static 10.10.100.11
255.255.255.0
xenserver02 SEC-STOR   SEC-STORAGE NIC3 static 10.10.101.11
255.255.255.0

What really went wrong. I could not able to ping 10.10.100.1 & 101.1 from
xenserver.

Thanks,
Keerthi


On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Rohit Yadav 
wrote:

> Hi Keerthiraja,
>
> Avoid relying on testing repos http://packages.bhaisaab.org as they are
> temporary and may change from time to time without notification.
>
> I would suggest removing old CloudStack management server cache after
> every upgrade:
>
> - Stop management server one by one
> - For each stopped management server, on Debian for example - remove   rm
> -fr /var/cache/cloudstack/management/work/*
> - Start management server again, this will remove old UI’s cache which may
> be affecting you
>
> If you’re using CentOS, let me know if this worked for you as the above
> has been tested only on Debian.
>
> > On 08-Feb-2015, at 4:05 pm, Keerthiraja SJ  wrote:
> >
> > I am using the repo with below link. I have choose Advance Network with
> > Security Group.
> >
> > http://packages.bhaisaab.org/cloudstack/testing/centos/4.5/
> >
> > This are my below csman configuration.
> >
> > eth0  Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 08:00:27:8D:E8:E2
> >  inet addr:192.168.56.11  Bcast:192.168.56.255
> Mask:255.255.255.0
> >  inet6 addr: fe80::a00:27ff:fe8d:e8e2/64 Scope:Link
> >  UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
> >  RX packets:2400 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> >  TX packets:3274 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> >  collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
> >  RX bytes:523822 (511.5 KiB)  TX bytes:3401559 (3.2 MiB)
> >  Interrupt:19 Base address:0xd020
> >
> > eth1  Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 08:00:27:97:87:7A
> >  inet addr:10.0.2.11  Bcast:10.0.2.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
> >  inet6 addr: fe80::a00:27ff:fe97:877a/64 Scope:Link
> >  UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
> >  RX packets:33 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> >  TX packets:50 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> >  collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
> >  RX bytes:10791 (10.5 KiB)  TX bytes:4245 (4.1 KiB)
> >
> > eth2  Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 08:00:27:CB:13:18
> >  inet addr:172.30.0.11  Bcast:172.30.0.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
> >  inet6 addr: fe80::a00:27ff:fecb:1318/64 Scope:Link
> >  UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
> >  RX packets:186 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> >  TX packets:11 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> >  collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
> >  RX bytes:63612 (62.1 KiB)  TX bytes:746 (746.0 b)
> >
> > eth3  Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 08:00:27:C3:5F:72
> >  inet6 addr: fe80::a00:27ff:fec3:5f72/64 Scope:Link
> >  UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:9000  Metric:1
> >  RX packets:181 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> >  TX packets:30 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> >  collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
> >  RX bytes:61902 (60.4 KiB)  TX bytes:2140 (2.0 KiB)
> >
> > eth3.100  Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 08:00:27:C3:5F:72
> >  inet addr:10.10.100.11  Bcast:10.10.100.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
> >  inet6 addr: fe80::a00:27ff:fec3:5f72/64 Scope:Link
> >  UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:9000  Metric:1
> >  RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> >  TX packets:12 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> >  collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
> >  RX bytes:0 (0.0 b)  TX bytes:816 (816.0 b)
> >
> > eth3.101  Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 08:00:27:C3:5F:72
> >  inet addr:10.10.101.11  Bcast:10.10.101.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
> >  inet6 addr: fe80::a00:27ff:fec3:5f72/64 Scope:Link
> >  UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:9000  Metric:1
> >  RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> >  TX packets:11 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> >  collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
> >  RX bytes:0 (0.0 b)  TX bytes:746 (746.0 b)
> >
> > Is any thing wrong.

RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC3

2015-02-09 Thread Geoff Higginbottom 
-1

When trying to add XenServers to a new 'Basic Zone without Security Groups" the 
Hosts remain in 'Alert' state because they are running OVS and not Linux Bridge.

There is no requirement to revert to Linux Bridge unless you are using Security 
Groups, so this test is incorrect.

In 4.3.x this was not the case.

If try and upgrade a 4.3.2 system which uses XenServer 6.2 with OVS enabled, 
all Hosts remain in Alert state as 4.5.0 is expecting Linux Bridge

Regards

Geoff Higginbottom

D: +44 20 3603 0542 | S: +44 20 3603 0540 | M: +447968161581

geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com

-Original Message-
From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com]
Sent: 09 February 2015 13:27
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC3

Yes, with -1s no point voting further.

Tested local storage in Advance zone.
Live VM migration is working with local storage (Xen 6.5 cluster) that was 
broken in RC1, and RC2.

-abhi


> On 09-Feb-2015, at 6:27 pm, Ian Duffy  wrote:
>
> +0 (no point voting with -1s above)
>
> Tested this using Devcloud4 on an advanced zone worked without issue,
> environment came up, template downloaded was able to create a VM and a
> egress rule to allow outbound connectivity. Great to see the xen
> server networking label stuff fixed, this caused some issues for me
> with automating things with marvin (hence why devcloud4 advance didn't
> work with 4.4).
>
> If anyone is interested: (assumes you've read the docs for devcloud4,
> installed berkshelf/chef-dk, setup the vboxnet adapters)
>
> git clone g...@github.com:imduffy15/devcloud4.git
> cd binary-installation-advanced
> vagrant up
>
>
> On 9 February 2015 at 09:02, Nux!  wrote:
>> Daan,
>>
>> That's fine. There were no critical issues to be addressed really by a 4.4.3 
>> AFAIK.
>> Let's get 4.5 right. :)
>>
>> --
>> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>>
>> Nux!
>> www.nux.ro
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Daan Hoogland" 
>>> To: "dev" 
>>> Sent: Monday, 9 February, 2015 07:29:13
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC3
>>
>>> Gents,
>>>
>>> 4.4.3 vote was never formally closed. Do we need to continue? If so
>>> I will create a new rc!
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Mike Tutkowski
>>>  wrote:
 FYI: I have resolved and closed out
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8233.

 On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Mike Tutkowski
  wrote:

> Here is the newly created bug:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8233
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Mike Tutkowski <
> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>
>> -1
>>
>> Marcus and I are working on a fix for not being able to create
>> VMs on KVM due to kvmclock not being recognized by older versions of 
>> Libvirt.
>>
>> I have most of the testing done. I should be done with the rest
>> of it today and can check this code in.
>>
>> I don't think we have a ticket for this, so I'll go ahead and create one.
>>
>> Thanks (and sorry for the need for a subsequent RC)!
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 12:01 AM, David Nalley  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I've created yet another 4.5.0 release candidate, with the
>>> following artifacts up for a vote:
>>>
>>> Git Branch and Commit SH:
>>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=short
>>> log;h=refs/heads/4.5-RC20150208T0646
>>> Commit: 187935a0e3c68e01ed33a8f7f0e6d69e6cdb0aca
>>>
>>> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
>>> same
>>> location):
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.5.0-rc3/
>>>
>>> PGP release keys (signed using 0x6fe50f1c):
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>>
>>> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>>
>>> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
>>> to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>>>
>>> [ ] +1  approve
>>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>>
>>>
>>> --David
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
>> o: 303.746.7302
>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
>> *™*
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Mike Tutkowski*
> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> o: 303.746.7302
> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> *™*
>



 --
 *Mike Tutkowski*
 *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
 e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
 o: 303.746.7302
 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
>>>

Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC3

2015-02-09 Thread Pierre-Luc Dion 
Geoff, as far as I know Basic Networking with Security group never worked
with XenServer + OVS, only with Bridge, please correct me if I'm wrong.




On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Geoff Higginbottom <
geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com> wrote:

> -1
>
> When trying to add XenServers to a new 'Basic Zone without Security
> Groups" the Hosts remain in 'Alert' state because they are running OVS and
> not Linux Bridge.
>
> There is no requirement to revert to Linux Bridge unless you are using
> Security Groups, so this test is incorrect.
>
> In 4.3.x this was not the case.
>
> If try and upgrade a 4.3.2 system which uses XenServer 6.2 with OVS
> enabled, all Hosts remain in Alert state as 4.5.0 is expecting Linux Bridge
>
> Regards
>
> Geoff Higginbottom
>
> D: +44 20 3603 0542 | S: +44 20 3603 0540 | M: +447968161581
>
> geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com]
> Sent: 09 February 2015 13:27
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC3
>
> Yes, with -1s no point voting further.
>
> Tested local storage in Advance zone.
> Live VM migration is working with local storage (Xen 6.5 cluster) that was
> broken in RC1, and RC2.
>
> -abhi
>
>
> > On 09-Feb-2015, at 6:27 pm, Ian Duffy  wrote:
> >
> > +0 (no point voting with -1s above)
> >
> > Tested this using Devcloud4 on an advanced zone worked without issue,
> > environment came up, template downloaded was able to create a VM and a
> > egress rule to allow outbound connectivity. Great to see the xen
> > server networking label stuff fixed, this caused some issues for me
> > with automating things with marvin (hence why devcloud4 advance didn't
> > work with 4.4).
> >
> > If anyone is interested: (assumes you've read the docs for devcloud4,
> > installed berkshelf/chef-dk, setup the vboxnet adapters)
> >
> > git clone g...@github.com:imduffy15/devcloud4.git
> > cd binary-installation-advanced
> > vagrant up
> >
> >
> > On 9 February 2015 at 09:02, Nux!  wrote:
> >> Daan,
> >>
> >> That's fine. There were no critical issues to be addressed really by a
> 4.4.3 AFAIK.
> >> Let's get 4.5 right. :)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
> >>
> >> Nux!
> >> www.nux.ro
> >>
> >> - Original Message -
> >>> From: "Daan Hoogland" 
> >>> To: "dev" 
> >>> Sent: Monday, 9 February, 2015 07:29:13
> >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC3
> >>
> >>> Gents,
> >>>
> >>> 4.4.3 vote was never formally closed. Do we need to continue? If so
> >>> I will create a new rc!
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Mike Tutkowski
> >>>  wrote:
>  FYI: I have resolved and closed out
>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8233.
> 
>  On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Mike Tutkowski
>   > wrote:
> 
> > Here is the newly created bug:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8233
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >
> >> -1
> >>
> >> Marcus and I are working on a fix for not being able to create
> >> VMs on KVM due to kvmclock not being recognized by older versions
> of Libvirt.
> >>
> >> I have most of the testing done. I should be done with the rest
> >> of it today and can check this code in.
> >>
> >> I don't think we have a ticket for this, so I'll go ahead and
> create one.
> >>
> >> Thanks (and sorry for the need for a subsequent RC)!
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 12:01 AM, David Nalley 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> I've created yet another 4.5.0 release candidate, with the
> >>> following artifacts up for a vote:
> >>>
> >>> Git Branch and Commit SH:
> >>>
> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=short
> >>> log;h=refs/heads/4.5-RC20150208T0646
> >>> Commit: 187935a0e3c68e01ed33a8f7f0e6d69e6cdb0aca
> >>>
> >>> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
> >>> same
> >>> location):
> >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.5.0-rc3/
> >>>
> >>> PGP release keys (signed using 0x6fe50f1c):
> >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
> >>>
> >>> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >>>
> >>> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
> >>> to indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
> >>>
> >>> [ ] +1  approve
> >>> [ ] +0  no opinion
> >>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --David
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> *Mike Tutkowski*
> >> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> >> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> >> o: 303.746.7302
> >> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> >>

RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC3

2015-02-09 Thread Geoff Higginbottom 
Hi Pierre-Luc,

You are right Basic Networking 'With' security Groups requires Linux Bridge, 
and will not work with OVS.

This is a Basic Zone 'Without' security groups so OVS should work.  Linux 
Bridge is only required if you use Security Groups.

I know of a CloudStack install running a Basic Zone without Security Groups on 
4.3.x and they are using OVS without any problems.

I did a test upgrade to 4.5.0 and the Hosts stay in Alert State.

Regards

Geoff Higginbottom

D: +44 20 3603 0542 | S: +44 20 3603 0540 | M: +447968161581

geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com

-Original Message-
From: Pierre-Luc Dion [mailto:pd...@cloudops.com]
Sent: 09 February 2015 13:48
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC3

Geoff, as far as I know Basic Networking with Security group never worked with 
XenServer + OVS, only with Bridge, please correct me if I'm wrong.




On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Geoff Higginbottom < 
geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com> wrote:

> -1
>
> When trying to add XenServers to a new 'Basic Zone without Security
> Groups" the Hosts remain in 'Alert' state because they are running OVS
> and not Linux Bridge.
>
> There is no requirement to revert to Linux Bridge unless you are using
> Security Groups, so this test is incorrect.
>
> In 4.3.x this was not the case.
>
> If try and upgrade a 4.3.2 system which uses XenServer 6.2 with OVS
> enabled, all Hosts remain in Alert state as 4.5.0 is expecting Linux
> Bridge
>
> Regards
>
> Geoff Higginbottom
>
> D: +44 20 3603 0542 | S: +44 20 3603 0540 | M: +447968161581
>
> geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com]
> Sent: 09 February 2015 13:27
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC3
>
> Yes, with -1s no point voting further.
>
> Tested local storage in Advance zone.
> Live VM migration is working with local storage (Xen 6.5 cluster) that
> was broken in RC1, and RC2.
>
> -abhi
>
>
> > On 09-Feb-2015, at 6:27 pm, Ian Duffy  wrote:
> >
> > +0 (no point voting with -1s above)
> >
> > Tested this using Devcloud4 on an advanced zone worked without
> > issue, environment came up, template downloaded was able to create a
> > VM and a egress rule to allow outbound connectivity. Great to see
> > the xen server networking label stuff fixed, this caused some issues
> > for me with automating things with marvin (hence why devcloud4
> > advance didn't work with 4.4).
> >
> > If anyone is interested: (assumes you've read the docs for
> > devcloud4, installed berkshelf/chef-dk, setup the vboxnet adapters)
> >
> > git clone g...@github.com:imduffy15/devcloud4.git
> > cd binary-installation-advanced
> > vagrant up
> >
> >
> > On 9 February 2015 at 09:02, Nux!  wrote:
> >> Daan,
> >>
> >> That's fine. There were no critical issues to be addressed really
> >> by a
> 4.4.3 AFAIK.
> >> Let's get 4.5 right. :)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
> >>
> >> Nux!
> >> www.nux.ro
> >>
> >> - Original Message -
> >>> From: "Daan Hoogland" 
> >>> To: "dev" 
> >>> Sent: Monday, 9 February, 2015 07:29:13
> >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC3
> >>
> >>> Gents,
> >>>
> >>> 4.4.3 vote was never formally closed. Do we need to continue? If
> >>> so I will create a new rc!
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Mike Tutkowski
> >>>  wrote:
>  FYI: I have resolved and closed out
>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8233.
> 
>  On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Mike Tutkowski
>   > wrote:
> 
> > Here is the newly created bug:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8233
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >
> >> -1
> >>
> >> Marcus and I are working on a fix for not being able to create
> >> VMs on KVM due to kvmclock not being recognized by older
> >> versions
> of Libvirt.
> >>
> >> I have most of the testing done. I should be done with the rest
> >> of it today and can check this code in.
> >>
> >> I don't think we have a ticket for this, so I'll go ahead and
> create one.
> >>
> >> Thanks (and sorry for the need for a subsequent RC)!
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 12:01 AM, David Nalley 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> I've created yet another 4.5.0 release candidate, with the
> >>> following artifacts up for a vote:
> >>>
> >>> Git Branch and Commit SH:
> >>>
> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=sho
> >>> rt
> >>> log;h=refs/heads/4.5-RC20150208T0646
> >>> Commit: 187935a0e3c68e01ed33a8f7f0e6d69e6cdb0aca
> >>>
> >>> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
> >>> same
> >>> location):
> >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/di

Re: Can System VMs be migrated?

2015-02-09 Thread Prashant Kumar Mishra 
1-Yes we can migrate system vm , I have done it many times


2-Even if vm is deployed with local storage you can migrate to another
local storage . Check out this api migrateVirtualMachineWithVolume


http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/api/apidocs-4.4/root_admin/migrateVirtual
MachineWithVolume.html


~prashant




On 2/9/15, 5:08 PM, "Rafael Weingartner" 
wrote:

>That is the answer I wanted to hear.  If we can migrate system VMs, why
>are
>the systems VMs¹ VDI allocated in the local SR on Xen hypervisor?
>
>It is not possible to migrate those system VMs, hence they are using a
>local SR.
>
>On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Sanjeev Neelarapu <
>sanjeev.neelar...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, we can.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Rafael Weingartner [mailto:rafaelweingart...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 2:41 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Can System VMs be migrated?
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I was wondering, can we migrate systems vms from a host to another one
>>in
>> the same cluster?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rafael Weingärtner
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Rafael Weingärtner

Re: Can System VMs be migrated?

2015-02-09 Thread Rafael Weingartner 
I also tried and it did not work. I am using CS 4.3.0.
I used the UI button. I got the error "VM_REQUIRES_SR".

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Prashant Kumar Mishra <
prashantkumar.mis...@citrix.com> wrote:

> 1-Yes we can migrate system vm , I have done it many times
>
>
> 2-Even if vm is deployed with local storage you can migrate to another
> local storage . Check out this api migrateVirtualMachineWithVolume
>
>
> http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/api/apidocs-4.4/root_admin/migrateVirtual
> MachineWithVolume.html
>
>
> ~prashant
>
>
>
>
> On 2/9/15, 5:08 PM, "Rafael Weingartner" 
> wrote:
>
> >That is the answer I wanted to hear.  If we can migrate system VMs, why
> >are
> >the systems VMs¹ VDI allocated in the local SR on Xen hypervisor?
> >
> >It is not possible to migrate those system VMs, hence they are using a
> >local SR.
> >
> >On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Sanjeev Neelarapu <
> >sanjeev.neelar...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, we can.
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Rafael Weingartner [mailto:rafaelweingart...@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 2:41 AM
> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> Subject: Can System VMs be migrated?
> >>
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> I was wondering, can we migrate systems vms from a host to another one
> >>in
> >> the same cluster?
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rafael Weingärtner
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Rafael Weingärtner
>
>


-- 
Rafael Weingärtner

Re: Can System VMs be migrated?

2015-02-09 Thread Rafael Weingartner 
Update:
The UI may not be working because it uses the command "migrateSystemVm",
instead of "migrateVirtualMachineWithVolume".
Shoud I open a bug report?

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Rafael Weingartner <
rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I also tried and it did not work. I am using CS 4.3.0.
> I used the UI button. I got the error "VM_REQUIRES_SR".
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Prashant Kumar Mishra <
> prashantkumar.mis...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> 1-Yes we can migrate system vm , I have done it many times
>>
>>
>> 2-Even if vm is deployed with local storage you can migrate to another
>> local storage . Check out this api migrateVirtualMachineWithVolume
>>
>>
>>
>> http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/api/apidocs-4.4/root_admin/migrateVirtual
>> MachineWithVolume.html
>> 
>>
>>
>> ~prashant
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/9/15, 5:08 PM, "Rafael Weingartner" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >That is the answer I wanted to hear.  If we can migrate system VMs, why
>> >are
>> >the systems VMs¹ VDI allocated in the local SR on Xen hypervisor?
>> >
>> >It is not possible to migrate those system VMs, hence they are using a
>> >local SR.
>> >
>> >On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Sanjeev Neelarapu <
>> >sanjeev.neelar...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes, we can.
>> >>
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: Rafael Weingartner [mailto:rafaelweingart...@gmail.com]
>> >> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 2:41 AM
>> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> >> Subject: Can System VMs be migrated?
>> >>
>> >> Hi folks,
>> >>
>> >> I was wondering, can we migrate systems vms from a host to another one
>> >>in
>> >> the same cluster?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Rafael Weingärtner
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Rafael Weingärtner
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingärtner
>



-- 
Rafael Weingärtner

Re: Can System VMs be migrated?

2015-02-09 Thread Yiping Zhang 
How do you migrate systemVM’s in UI?

If you just put the host, where the systemVM’s are running, into
“maintenance” mode, then you may have hit this bug which was fixed in
4.4.0: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5660


Yiping

On 2/9/15, 11:01 AM, "Rafael Weingartner" 
wrote:

>Update:
>The UI may not be working because it uses the command "migrateSystemVm",
>instead of "migrateVirtualMachineWithVolume".
>Shoud I open a bug report?
>
>On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Rafael Weingartner <
>rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I also tried and it did not work. I am using CS 4.3.0.
>> I used the UI button. I got the error "VM_REQUIRES_SR".
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Prashant Kumar Mishra <
>> prashantkumar.mis...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 1-Yes we can migrate system vm , I have done it many times
>>>
>>>
>>> 2-Even if vm is deployed with local storage you can migrate to another
>>> local storage . Check out this api migrateVirtualMachineWithVolume
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/api/apidocs-4.4/root_admin/migrateVirt
>>>ual
>>> MachineWithVolume.html
>>> 
>>>>>tualMachineWithVolume.html>
>>>
>>>
>>> ~prashant
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/9/15, 5:08 PM, "Rafael Weingartner" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >That is the answer I wanted to hear.  If we can migrate system VMs,
>>>why
>>> >are
>>> >the systems VMs¹ VDI allocated in the local SR on Xen hypervisor?
>>> >
>>> >It is not possible to migrate those system VMs, hence they are using a
>>> >local SR.
>>> >
>>> >On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Sanjeev Neelarapu <
>>> >sanjeev.neelar...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Yes, we can.
>>> >>
>>> >> -Original Message-
>>> >> From: Rafael Weingartner [mailto:rafaelweingart...@gmail.com]
>>> >> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 2:41 AM
>>> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> >> Subject: Can System VMs be migrated?
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi folks,
>>> >>
>>> >> I was wondering, can we migrate systems vms from a host to another
>>>one
>>> >>in
>>> >> the same cluster?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Rafael Weingärtner
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >Rafael Weingärtner
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rafael Weingärtner
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Rafael Weingärtner

Re: Can System VMs be migrated?

2015-02-09 Thread Rafael Weingartner 
Well,
There is a button, take a look at the SS I took:
http://postimg.org/image/5sr7yxyud/

I am curious, why does the CS allocate system VMs’ VDI on local SR on Xen
hypervisor? Why not use the primary storage of the cluster in which the
host is in?
I looked at the code, and it is hard coded there, Xen hosts have to have a
local SR, otherwise you cannot add them into CS (first time I saw that I
found it very weird, I even sent an email about it, but did not get any
reply).

That does not seem to happen with other hypervisors.

Now that you mentioned the maintenance mode, I noticed that system VMs are
not being migrated when I put its host in maintenance, I thought that was a
normal behavior (weird one but normal, given that those VMs are using the
local SR of the Xen hypervisor).

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Yiping Zhang  wrote:

> How do you migrate systemVM’s in UI?
>
> If you just put the host, where the systemVM’s are running, into
> “maintenance” mode, then you may have hit this bug which was fixed in
> 4.4.0: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5660
>
>
> Yiping
>
> On 2/9/15, 11:01 AM, "Rafael Weingartner" 
> wrote:
>
> >Update:
> >The UI may not be working because it uses the command "migrateSystemVm",
> >instead of "migrateVirtualMachineWithVolume".
> >Shoud I open a bug report?
> >
> >On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Rafael Weingartner <
> >rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I also tried and it did not work. I am using CS 4.3.0.
> >> I used the UI button. I got the error "VM_REQUIRES_SR".
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Prashant Kumar Mishra <
> >> prashantkumar.mis...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 1-Yes we can migrate system vm , I have done it many times
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2-Even if vm is deployed with local storage you can migrate to another
> >>> local storage . Check out this api migrateVirtualMachineWithVolume
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/api/apidocs-4.4/root_admin/migrateVirt
> >>>ual
> >>> MachineWithVolume.html
> >>>
> >>><
> http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/api/apidocs-4.4/root_admin/migrateVir
> >>>tualMachineWithVolume.html>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ~prashant
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2/9/15, 5:08 PM, "Rafael Weingartner" 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >That is the answer I wanted to hear.  If we can migrate system VMs,
> >>>why
> >>> >are
> >>> >the systems VMs¹ VDI allocated in the local SR on Xen hypervisor?
> >>> >
> >>> >It is not possible to migrate those system VMs, hence they are using a
> >>> >local SR.
> >>> >
> >>> >On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Sanjeev Neelarapu <
> >>> >sanjeev.neelar...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Yes, we can.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> -Original Message-
> >>> >> From: Rafael Weingartner [mailto:rafaelweingart...@gmail.com]
> >>> >> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 2:41 AM
> >>> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >>> >> Subject: Can System VMs be migrated?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hi folks,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I was wondering, can we migrate systems vms from a host to another
> >>>one
> >>> >>in
> >>> >> the same cluster?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> Rafael Weingärtner
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >--
> >>> >Rafael Weingärtner
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rafael Weingärtner
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Rafael Weingärtner
>
>


-- 
Rafael Weingärtner

[ACS450] systemvm template to use

2015-02-09 Thread Pierre-Luc Dion 
Hi,

I'd like to know what SystemVM template we will use in  ACS450, Jenkins'
ones or thoses from CloudPlatform 4.5.0 that are in the Release Notes of
CCP?

I think all tests made by the community have been made using latest 4.5.0
systemvm template from Jenkins, right?

Thanks,

Re: [ACS450] systemvm template to use

2015-02-09 Thread Mike Tutkowski 
I used Jenkins for the 4.5 system templates for my 4.5 testing.

On Monday, February 9, 2015, Pierre-Luc Dion  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'd like to know what SystemVM template we will use in  ACS450, Jenkins'
> ones or thoses from CloudPlatform 4.5.0 that are in the Release Notes of
> CCP?
>
> I think all tests made by the community have been made using latest 4.5.0
> systemvm template from Jenkins, right?
>
> Thanks,
>


-- 
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
*™*

Re: [ACS450] systemvm template to use

2015-02-09 Thread Abhinandan Prateek 
The ones build by jenkins are also available for download from here (for 4.5)

http://packages.shapeblue.com/systemvmtemplate/4.5/

-abhi


> On 10-Feb-2015, at 9:06 am, Mike Tutkowski  
> wrote:
>
> I used Jenkins for the 4.5 system templates for my 4.5 testing.
>
> On Monday, February 9, 2015, Pierre-Luc Dion  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to know what SystemVM template we will use in  ACS450, Jenkins'
>> ones or thoses from CloudPlatform 4.5.0 that are in the Release Notes of
>> CCP?
>>
>> I think all tests made by the community have been made using latest 4.5.0
>> systemvm template from Jenkins, right?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>
>
> --
> *Mike Tutkowski*
> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> o: 303.746.7302
> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> *™*

Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services

IaaS Cloud Design & Build
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework
CloudStack Consulting
CloudStack Software 
Engineering
CloudStack Infrastructure 
Support
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses

This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended 
solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or 
opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the 
intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon 
its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you 
believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company 
incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company 
incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape 
Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is 
operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company 
registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from 
Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.

Re: Can System VMs be migrated?

2015-02-09 Thread Abhinandan Prateek 
While creating a zone you can configure the use of local storage. It seems you 
configured it erroneously.
In 4.3 as per my knowledge live vm migration with local storage is broken. Use 
it in 4,5 it works I have tested it.
If you do not want to use local storage make sure you turn it off while 
creating the zone.

-abhi


> On 10-Feb-2015, at 1:20 am, Rafael Weingartner  
> wrote:
>
> Well,
> There is a button, take a look at the SS I took:
> http://postimg.org/image/5sr7yxyud/
>
> I am curious, why does the CS allocate system VMs’ VDI on local SR on Xen
> hypervisor? Why not use the primary storage of the cluster in which the
> host is in?
> I looked at the code, and it is hard coded there, Xen hosts have to have a
> local SR, otherwise you cannot add them into CS (first time I saw that I
> found it very weird, I even sent an email about it, but did not get any
> reply).
>
> That does not seem to happen with other hypervisors.
>
> Now that you mentioned the maintenance mode, I noticed that system VMs are
> not being migrated when I put its host in maintenance, I thought that was a
> normal behavior (weird one but normal, given that those VMs are using the
> local SR of the Xen hypervisor).
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Yiping Zhang  wrote:
>
>> How do you migrate systemVM’s in UI?
>>
>> If you just put the host, where the systemVM’s are running, into
>> “maintenance” mode, then you may have hit this bug which was fixed in
>> 4.4.0: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5660
>>
>>
>> Yiping
>>
>> On 2/9/15, 11:01 AM, "Rafael Weingartner" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Update:
>>> The UI may not be working because it uses the command "migrateSystemVm",
>>> instead of "migrateVirtualMachineWithVolume".
>>> Shoud I open a bug report?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Rafael Weingartner <
>>> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 I also tried and it did not work. I am using CS 4.3.0.
 I used the UI button. I got the error "VM_REQUIRES_SR".

 On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Prashant Kumar Mishra <
 prashantkumar.mis...@citrix.com> wrote:

> 1-Yes we can migrate system vm , I have done it many times
>
>
> 2-Even if vm is deployed with local storage you can migrate to another
> local storage . Check out this api migrateVirtualMachineWithVolume
>
>
>
>
>
>> http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/api/apidocs-4.4/root_admin/migrateVirt
> ual
> MachineWithVolume.html
>
> <
>> http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/api/apidocs-4.4/root_admin/migrateVir
> tualMachineWithVolume.html>
>
>
> ~prashant
>
>
>
>
> On 2/9/15, 5:08 PM, "Rafael Weingartner" 
> wrote:
>
>> That is the answer I wanted to hear.  If we can migrate system VMs,
> why
>> are
>> the systems VMs¹ VDI allocated in the local SR on Xen hypervisor?
>>
>> It is not possible to migrate those system VMs, hence they are using a
>> local SR.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Sanjeev Neelarapu <
>> sanjeev.neelar...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, we can.
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Rafael Weingartner [mailto:rafaelweingart...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 2:41 AM
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: Can System VMs be migrated?
>>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> I was wondering, can we migrate systems vms from a host to another
> one
>>> in
>>> the same cluster?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rafael Weingärtner
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rafael Weingärtner
>
>


 --
 Rafael Weingärtner

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rafael Weingärtner
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingärtner

Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services

IaaS Cloud Design & Build
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework
CloudStack Consulting
CloudStack Software 
Engineering
CloudStack Infrastructure 
Support
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses

This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended 
solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or 
opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the 
intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon 
its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you 
believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company 
incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company 
incorporated in India and is operated unde

Re: Can System VMs be migrated?

2015-02-09 Thread Marcus 
edit the global setting "system.vm.use.local.storage", restart mgmt server.

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Abhinandan Prateek
 wrote:
> While creating a zone you can configure the use of local storage. It seems 
> you configured it erroneously.
> In 4.3 as per my knowledge live vm migration with local storage is broken. 
> Use it in 4,5 it works I have tested it.
> If you do not want to use local storage make sure you turn it off while 
> creating the zone.
>
> -abhi
>
>
>> On 10-Feb-2015, at 1:20 am, Rafael Weingartner  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Well,
>> There is a button, take a look at the SS I took:
>> http://postimg.org/image/5sr7yxyud/
>>
>> I am curious, why does the CS allocate system VMs’ VDI on local SR on Xen
>> hypervisor? Why not use the primary storage of the cluster in which the
>> host is in?
>> I looked at the code, and it is hard coded there, Xen hosts have to have a
>> local SR, otherwise you cannot add them into CS (first time I saw that I
>> found it very weird, I even sent an email about it, but did not get any
>> reply).
>>
>> That does not seem to happen with other hypervisors.
>>
>> Now that you mentioned the maintenance mode, I noticed that system VMs are
>> not being migrated when I put its host in maintenance, I thought that was a
>> normal behavior (weird one but normal, given that those VMs are using the
>> local SR of the Xen hypervisor).
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Yiping Zhang  wrote:
>>
>>> How do you migrate systemVM’s in UI?
>>>
>>> If you just put the host, where the systemVM’s are running, into
>>> “maintenance” mode, then you may have hit this bug which was fixed in
>>> 4.4.0: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5660
>>>
>>>
>>> Yiping
>>>
>>> On 2/9/15, 11:01 AM, "Rafael Weingartner" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Update:
 The UI may not be working because it uses the command "migrateSystemVm",
 instead of "migrateVirtualMachineWithVolume".
 Shoud I open a bug report?

 On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Rafael Weingartner <
 rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I also tried and it did not work. I am using CS 4.3.0.
> I used the UI button. I got the error "VM_REQUIRES_SR".
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Prashant Kumar Mishra <
> prashantkumar.mis...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> 1-Yes we can migrate system vm , I have done it many times
>>
>>
>> 2-Even if vm is deployed with local storage you can migrate to another
>> local storage . Check out this api migrateVirtualMachineWithVolume
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/api/apidocs-4.4/root_admin/migrateVirt
>> ual
>> MachineWithVolume.html
>>
>> <
>>> http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/api/apidocs-4.4/root_admin/migrateVir
>> tualMachineWithVolume.html>
>>
>>
>> ~prashant
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/9/15, 5:08 PM, "Rafael Weingartner" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That is the answer I wanted to hear.  If we can migrate system VMs,
>> why
>>> are
>>> the systems VMs¹ VDI allocated in the local SR on Xen hypervisor?
>>>
>>> It is not possible to migrate those system VMs, hence they are using a
>>> local SR.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Sanjeev Neelarapu <
>>> sanjeev.neelar...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>
 Yes, we can.

 -Original Message-
 From: Rafael Weingartner [mailto:rafaelweingart...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 2:41 AM
 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
 Subject: Can System VMs be migrated?

 Hi folks,

 I was wondering, can we migrate systems vms from a host to another
>> one
 in
 the same cluster?


 --
 Rafael Weingärtner

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rafael Weingärtner
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingärtner
>



 --
 Rafael Weingärtner
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rafael Weingärtner
>
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build
> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework
> CloudStack Consulting
> CloudStack Software 
> Engineering
> CloudStack Infrastructure 
> Support
> CloudStack Bootcamp Training 
> Courses
>
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended 
> solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or 
> opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
> represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the 
> intended recipient of this email, y

Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Cloudstack doesn't consider storage overp...

2015-02-09 Thread Marcus 
We discussed this very thing awhile back, and decided the correct fix
was to have the storage drivers contain a method that would decide if
a pool type is capable of thin provisioning. It's a bigger fix than
this though.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 10:27 PM, ghxandsky  wrote:
> GitHub user ghxandsky opened a pull request:
>
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/74
>
> Cloudstack doesn't consider storage overprovisioning factor when using 
> t...
>
> ...hin Provisioning over ShareMountPoint with KVM.
>
> You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
>
> $ git pull https://github.com/ghxandsky/cloudstack 4.4
>
> Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:
>
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/74.patch
>
> To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
> with (at least) the following in the commit message:
>
> This closes #74
>
> 
> commit e08815db152e469c6de8009b2d5058458c271d25
> Author: 郭华星 
> Date:   2015-02-09T06:23:06Z
>
> Cloudstack doesn't consider storage overprovisioning factor when using 
> thin Provisioning over ShareMountPoint with KVM.
>
> 
>
>
> ---
> If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
> reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
> enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
> contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
> with INFRA.
> ---

Review Request 30821: CLOUDSTACK-8236: Automation test cases for storage migration test path

2015-02-09 Thread Ashutosh Kelkar 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30821/
---

Review request for cloudstack and SrikanteswaraRao Talluri.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-8236
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8236


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

First few test scenarios for storage migration test path.


Diffs
-

  test/integration/component/test_storage_migration.py PRE-CREATION 
  tools/marvin/marvin/codes.py a7e8ec8 
  tools/marvin/marvin/lib/base.py e38c394 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30821/diff/


Testing
---

Test migrate Volume (root and data disk) ... === TestName: 
test_01_migrate_root_and_data_disk_nonlive | Status : SUCCESS ===
ok

--
Ran 1 test in 663.665s

OK


Thanks,

Ashutosh Kelkar