RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Animesh Chaturvedi]

-Original Message-
From: sebgoa [mailto:run...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 5:47 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; ustcweiz...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC


On Jan 6, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Wei ZHOU  wrote:

> Hi Abhi,
> 
> I have two problems,
> (1) 3a999e7 made OVS not working on 4.2, so I fixed it by commit 
> 79f609ca19fc44aab8de8294f234537936bc3613
> (2)  DevCloud does not work after commit 
> 7f9463bb54f19e7676f8c6049d1ebc02330a730f. So I am wondering if XCP 
> works after that.
> 

Wei, is there a bug (2) for this ? We need to make sure it gets fixed in 4.3
[Animesh] Adding Edison for  devcloud issues he said he is looking into it, but 
will need some help in rebuilding the images with updated templates.

thanks

-sebastien

> -Wei
> 
> 
> 
> 2013/12/17 Abhinandan Prateek 
> 
>> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to 
>> generate the previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>> 
>> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>> 
>> 
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h
>> =refs/heads/4.2
>> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>> 
>> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be 
>> accessed
>> here:
>> 
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain
>> ;f=CHANGES;hb=4.2
>> 
>> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available 
>> at the same location):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>> 
>> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>> 
>> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>> 
>> 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)
>> 
>> 

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[sebgoa]

On Jan 6, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Wei ZHOU  wrote:

> Hi Abhi,
> 
> I have two problems,
> (1) 3a999e7 made OVS not working on 4.2, so I fixed it by
> commit 79f609ca19fc44aab8de8294f234537936bc3613
> (2)  DevCloud does not work after commit
> 7f9463bb54f19e7676f8c6049d1ebc02330a730f. So I am wondering if XCP works
> after that.
> 

Wei, is there a bug (2) for this ? We need to make sure it gets fixed in 4.3

thanks

-sebastien

> -Wei
> 
> 
> 
> 2013/12/17 Abhinandan Prateek 
> 
>> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate
>> the previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>> 
>> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>> 
>> 
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.2
>> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>> 
>> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed
>> here:
>> 
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES;hb=4.2
>> 
>> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at
>> the same location):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>> 
>> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>> 
>> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>> 
>> 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)
>> 
>> 

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Abhinandan Prateek]

On 04/01/14 6:52 pm, "David Nalley"  wrote:

>Abhi:
>
>Please send a [VOTE] [RESULT] email with the vote tally.
>
>I am somewhat surprised that 4.2.1 wasn't tagged using build_asf.sh
>during the creation of the RC artifacts. Are you sure you aren't
>sitting on the tag locally? Also the tag should be 4.2.1, look at the
>other tags for examples.
>

4.2.1 tag is now moved to the right commit:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=1b2b58f
e352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5

-abhi

>

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Abhinandan Prateek]

4.2.1 RC is now approved as a GA build with following votes:

+1 : 7 votes - 3 bindings from Daan, Chip and David.
+/-0: 2 votes from Tomesz and sebastian.

Some issues have been pointed out by Tomasz (5422,5332 & 3806), Andrei
(issue with KVM:S3) and Wei pointed out issues with DevCloud and OVS
support for KVM. 
These should be addresses in the next release (4.3).

-abhi



On 17/12/13 7:19 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek" 
wrote:

>The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate
>the previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>
>Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>
>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs
>/heads/4.2
>commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>
>List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed
>here:
>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=CH
>ANGES;hb=4.2
>
>Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at
>the same location):
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>
>PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
>Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>
>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)
>

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[sebgoa]

On Jan 6, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Abhinandan Prateek  
wrote:

> Wei,
> 
>   I think KVM support for OVS was not a supported feature in 4.2. It can
> go as a supported feature in 4.3.
> 
> DevCloud is not a blocker.

For the record, I disagree with this statement. For 4.1 and 4.2 we had a 
release testing procedure which was based on devcloud.
While not a production setup, devcloud is used heavily for demos etc…that means 
that we won't be able to demo the official 4.2.1 on devcloud.

+0

> 
> We will go ahead with the release process as of now.
> 
> -abhi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 06/01/14 2:16 pm, "Wei ZHOU"  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Abhi,
>> 
>> I have two problems,
>> (1) 3a999e7 made OVS not working on 4.2, so I fixed it by
>> commit 79f609ca19fc44aab8de8294f234537936bc3613
>> (2)  DevCloud does not work after commit
>> 7f9463bb54f19e7676f8c6049d1ebc02330a730f. So I am wondering if XCP works
>> after that.
>> 
>> -Wei
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2013/12/17 Abhinandan Prateek 
>> 
>>> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate
>>> the previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>>> 
>>> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=ref
>>> s/heads/4.2
>>> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>>> 
>>> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be
>>> accessed
>>> here:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=C
>>> HANGES;hb=4.2
>>> 
>>> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at
>>> the same location):
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>>> 
>>> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>> 
>>> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>>> 
>>> 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)
>>> 
>>> 
> 

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Abhinandan Prateek]

Wei,
  The concerns you have raised are valid. I guess we should have more
people testing things like DevCloud and XCP.
In the past also I have seen that issues with DevCloud are not resolved on
priority. From my end if possible I will try to push for testing these
much earlier in release cycle.

-abhi

On 06/01/14 4:29 pm, "Wei ZHOU"  wrote:

>Abhi, Thanks!
>
>-Wei

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Wei ZHOU]

Abhi, Thanks!

-Wei

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Abhinandan Prateek]

Wei,

   I think KVM support for OVS was not a supported feature in 4.2. It can
go as a supported feature in 4.3.

DevCloud is not a blocker.

We will go ahead with the release process as of now.

-abhi




On 06/01/14 2:16 pm, "Wei ZHOU"  wrote:

>Hi Abhi,
>
>I have two problems,
>(1) 3a999e7 made OVS not working on 4.2, so I fixed it by
>commit 79f609ca19fc44aab8de8294f234537936bc3613
>(2)  DevCloud does not work after commit
>7f9463bb54f19e7676f8c6049d1ebc02330a730f. So I am wondering if XCP works
>after that.
>
>-Wei
>
>
>
>2013/12/17 Abhinandan Prateek 
>
>> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate
>> the previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>>
>> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>>
>>
>> 
>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=ref
>>s/heads/4.2
>> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>>
>> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be
>>accessed
>> here:
>>
>> 
>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=C
>>HANGES;hb=4.2
>>
>> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at
>> the same location):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>>
>> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>
>> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>>
>> 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)
>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Wei ZHOU]

Hi Abhi,

I have two problems,
(1) 3a999e7 made OVS not working on 4.2, so I fixed it by
commit 79f609ca19fc44aab8de8294f234537936bc3613
(2)  DevCloud does not work after commit
7f9463bb54f19e7676f8c6049d1ebc02330a730f. So I am wondering if XCP works
after that.

-Wei



2013/12/17 Abhinandan Prateek 

> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate
> the previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>
> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.2
> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>
> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed
> here:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES;hb=4.2
>
> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at
> the same location):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>
> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>
> 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)
>
>

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[David Nalley]

>>4 can be done by any PMC member; but needs 24 hours for syncing of
>>mirrors prior to announcement. If Chip doesn't pick this up, I'll push
>>bits in place tonight or tomorrow.
>>

I've pushed bits into place.
I also removed the bits for 4.1.0 and 4.2.0 so that they are only in
the archives while the 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 remain as the latest versions
of 4.1 branch and 4.2 branch.

--David

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Abhinandan Prateek]

On 04/01/14 6:52 pm, "David Nalley"  wrote:

>Abhi:
>
>Please send a [VOTE] [RESULT] email with the vote tally.

Sure.
>
>I am somewhat surprised that 4.2.1 wasn't tagged using build_asf.sh
>during the creation of the RC artifacts. Are you sure you aren't
>sitting on the tag locally? Also the tag should be 4.2.1, look at the
>other tags for examples.

Due to multiple Rcs creating a fixed name tag does not work via script.
Daan suggested that we make a tag with date.
Anyways now that this RC is confirmed I will push the tag.

>
>Please keep in mind 5,6 need to hit the ACS blog, announce@ and a
>number of other places. Also keep in mind that we announce releases on
>Tuesdays to maximize the attention we get. This is less important for
>bugfix releases, but still good practice.

Noted.
>
>4 can be done by any PMC member; but needs 24 hours for syncing of
>mirrors prior to announcement. If Chip doesn't pick this up, I'll push
>bits in place tonight or tomorrow.
>
>Thanks for all of your work on this release; hopefully we haven't
>scared you off from RMing future releases.

It is great learning one, where you understand the various processes and
nuances, and two, keeping patience while addressing concerns from
community.
Would like to thank the many PMC members who helped me in the process.

-abhi
>
>--David
>
>
>
>On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
> wrote:
>> Now that we have the necessary votes we need to move ahead, these are
>>the
>> next steps, will be looking for advice from PMC:
>>
>> Next steps:
>>
>> 1. Tag the git commit with 4.2.1_GA
>> 2. Building and publishing packages (DEB and RPM)
>> 3. Publishing the docs here cloudstack.apache.org/docs
>> 4. Put the artefacts for download
>> 5. Finalise the release announcement:
>> 
>>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/4.2.1+Release+Anno
>>un
>> cement
>> 6. Announce the release on the website
>>
>> I will take care of 1,5,6
>> In the past Wido took care of 2 (DEB packages) not sure who built the
>>RPMs.
>> Sebastien I am assuming that you will take care of 3.
>> Chip it seems you took care of 4 for 4.2.
>>
>> -abhi
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/01/14 12:49 am, "David Nalley"  wrote:
>>
>>>Yep - I am otherwise happy with this RC. Consider my -1 retracted and
>>>a +1 (binding) (which I think gives us the three necessary)
>>>
>>>Thanks for all of the work checking on this folks.
>>>
>>>--David
>>>
>>>On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Daan Hoogland 
>>>wrote:
 I know Hugo made something to include it in the rpm. I'm not sure if
 this is on the 4.2 branch. Look in the root dir of the archive.

 @David: you casted a -1. Can you get your conscience to retract that?
 @all: how do we go from here?

 regards

 On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Nux!  wrote:
> On 03.01.2014 14:32, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>
>> This spin was created by Abhinandan at the 17th so, give us a commit
>> id so we can determine if we can release it, can you?
>
>
> Would this commit id be somewhere in the RPMs? Cause I long wiped out
>the VM
> used to build them.
> Anyway, the 17th should also be ok afaic, the problem I had seems to
>be
> related to KVM and the disappearence of the "-s" option for qemu-img
>from EL
> 6.4 to EL 6.5.
>
> Lucian
>
>
> --
> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>
> Nux!
> www.nux.ro
>>

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Nux!]

On 03.01.2014 18:54, Edison Su wrote:

Thanks for your binaries, community can use your binaries if anybody
wants to enable KVM snapshot on EL6.


I have found a better way of "fixing" this, as I got more familiar with 
the ACS inner workings. Wrote a few details here:

http://www.nux.ro/archive/2014/01/Taking_KVM_volume_snapshots_with_Cloudstack_4_2_on_CentOS_6_5.html

Short story: install the old qemu-img in /usr/bin/cloud-qemu-img and 
ACS will use that.


--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[David Nalley]

Abhi:

Please send a [VOTE] [RESULT] email with the vote tally.

I am somewhat surprised that 4.2.1 wasn't tagged using build_asf.sh
during the creation of the RC artifacts. Are you sure you aren't
sitting on the tag locally? Also the tag should be 4.2.1, look at the
other tags for examples.

Please keep in mind 5,6 need to hit the ACS blog, announce@ and a
number of other places. Also keep in mind that we announce releases on
Tuesdays to maximize the attention we get. This is less important for
bugfix releases, but still good practice.

4 can be done by any PMC member; but needs 24 hours for syncing of
mirrors prior to announcement. If Chip doesn't pick this up, I'll push
bits in place tonight or tomorrow.

Thanks for all of your work on this release; hopefully we haven't
scared you off from RMing future releases.

--David



On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
 wrote:
> Now that we have the necessary votes we need to move ahead, these are the
> next steps, will be looking for advice from PMC:
>
> Next steps:
>
> 1. Tag the git commit with 4.2.1_GA
> 2. Building and publishing packages (DEB and RPM)
> 3. Publishing the docs here cloudstack.apache.org/docs
> 4. Put the artefacts for download
> 5. Finalise the release announcement:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/4.2.1+Release+Announ
> cement
> 6. Announce the release on the website
>
> I will take care of 1,5,6
> In the past Wido took care of 2 (DEB packages) not sure who built the RPMs.
> Sebastien I am assuming that you will take care of 3.
> Chip it seems you took care of 4 for 4.2.
>
> -abhi
>
>
>
> On 04/01/14 12:49 am, "David Nalley"  wrote:
>
>>Yep - I am otherwise happy with this RC. Consider my -1 retracted and
>>a +1 (binding) (which I think gives us the three necessary)
>>
>>Thanks for all of the work checking on this folks.
>>
>>--David
>>
>>On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Daan Hoogland 
>>wrote:
>>> I know Hugo made something to include it in the rpm. I'm not sure if
>>> this is on the 4.2 branch. Look in the root dir of the archive.
>>>
>>> @David: you casted a -1. Can you get your conscience to retract that?
>>> @all: how do we go from here?
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Nux!  wrote:
 On 03.01.2014 14:32, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>
> This spin was created by Abhinandan at the 17th so, give us a commit
> id so we can determine if we can release it, can you?


 Would this commit id be somewhere in the RPMs? Cause I long wiped out
the VM
 used to build them.
 Anyway, the 17th should also be ok afaic, the problem I had seems to be
 related to KVM and the disappearence of the "-s" option for qemu-img
from EL
 6.4 to EL 6.5.

 Lucian


 --
 Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

 Nux!
 www.nux.ro
>

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Abhinandan Prateek]

Now that we have the necessary votes we need to move ahead, these are the
next steps, will be looking for advice from PMC:

Next steps:

1. Tag the git commit with 4.2.1_GA
2. Building and publishing packages (DEB and RPM)
3. Publishing the docs here cloudstack.apache.org/docs
4. Put the artefacts for download
5. Finalise the release announcement:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/4.2.1+Release+Announ
cement
6. Announce the release on the website

I will take care of 1,5,6
In the past Wido took care of 2 (DEB packages) not sure who built the RPMs.
Sebastien I am assuming that you will take care of 3.
Chip it seems you took care of 4 for 4.2.

-abhi



On 04/01/14 12:49 am, "David Nalley"  wrote:

>Yep - I am otherwise happy with this RC. Consider my -1 retracted and
>a +1 (binding) (which I think gives us the three necessary)
>
>Thanks for all of the work checking on this folks.
>
>--David
>
>On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Daan Hoogland 
>wrote:
>> I know Hugo made something to include it in the rpm. I'm not sure if
>> this is on the 4.2 branch. Look in the root dir of the archive.
>>
>> @David: you casted a -1. Can you get your conscience to retract that?
>> @all: how do we go from here?
>>
>> regards
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Nux!  wrote:
>>> On 03.01.2014 14:32, Daan Hoogland wrote:

 This spin was created by Abhinandan at the 17th so, give us a commit
 id so we can determine if we can release it, can you?
>>>
>>>
>>> Would this commit id be somewhere in the RPMs? Cause I long wiped out
>>>the VM
>>> used to build them.
>>> Anyway, the 17th should also be ok afaic, the problem I had seems to be
>>> related to KVM and the disappearence of the "-s" option for qemu-img
>>>from EL
>>> 6.4 to EL 6.5.
>>>
>>> Lucian
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>>>
>>> Nux!
>>> www.nux.ro

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[David Nalley]

Yep - I am otherwise happy with this RC. Consider my -1 retracted and
a +1 (binding) (which I think gives us the three necessary)

Thanks for all of the work checking on this folks.

--David

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Daan Hoogland  wrote:
> I know Hugo made something to include it in the rpm. I'm not sure if
> this is on the 4.2 branch. Look in the root dir of the archive.
>
> @David: you casted a -1. Can you get your conscience to retract that?
> @all: how do we go from here?
>
> regards
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Nux!  wrote:
>> On 03.01.2014 14:32, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>>
>>> This spin was created by Abhinandan at the 17th so, give us a commit
>>> id so we can determine if we can release it, can you?
>>
>>
>> Would this commit id be somewhere in the RPMs? Cause I long wiped out the VM
>> used to build them.
>> Anyway, the 17th should also be ok afaic, the problem I had seems to be
>> related to KVM and the disappearence of the "-s" option for qemu-img from EL
>> 6.4 to EL 6.5.
>>
>> Lucian
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>>
>> Nux!
>> www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Edison Su]

> -Original Message-
> From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 10:45 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
> 
> On 03.01.2014 18:31, Edison Su wrote:
> > Regarding to KVM binaries, in order to make volume snapshot working
> > with cloudstack, we need KVM hypervisor support following features:
> > 1. disk only snapshot, don't save vm memory(saving vm memory usually
> > takes several seconds. In RHEL <6.3, it will even take few minutes for
> > a vm with large memory. It means user vm will be paused for that long
> > time, during snapshot, which may be not acceptable for many users).
> > 2. be able to backup snapshot from primary storage to secondary
> > storage.
> >
> > Few years ago, I send two patches to KVM community:
> > [1]http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-09/msg00655.html
> > [2]http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-09/msg01662.ht
> > ml The [2] is already in KVM upstream, the [1] is not checked in at
> > that time, but it's supported later on, with the so called "disk-only"
> > snapshot.
> >
> > In ACS release, we(Citrix QA team) usually test it on RHEL 6, which
> > doesn't have above functionalities, that's why I say the kvm snapshot
> > is not supported by default. But if you are using latest kvm
> > distribution, you will get this feature. Maybe we should support newer
> > version of KVM distribution better, such as the upcoming Ubuntu 14.04
> > etc?
> 
> Edison,
> 
> This is a good idea, especially as RHEL7 is coming and it has pretty neat
> features.

Yes, RHEL7 must be good, as RHEL6 is tooo old:)

> Even with EL6 qemu-kvm-rhev that I built[1] most of this stuff is working
> great https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Virt_Live_Snapshots , even
> VM snapshots could be supported.
> I'll probably get back to the list with more questions about how to enable VM
> snapshots later this week.

Thanks for your binaries, community can use your binaries if anybody wants to 
enable KVM snapshot on EL6.

> 
> [1] - http://li.nux.ro/download/nux/tmp/kvm-rhev/el6/
> 
> --
> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
> 
> Nux!
> www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Nux!]

On 03.01.2014 18:31, Edison Su wrote:

Regarding to KVM binaries, in order to make volume snapshot working
with cloudstack, we need KVM hypervisor support following features:
1. disk only snapshot, don't save vm memory(saving vm memory usually
takes several seconds. In RHEL <6.3, it will even take few minutes for
a vm with large memory. It means user vm will be paused for that long
time, during snapshot, which may be not acceptable for many users).
2. be able to backup snapshot from primary storage to secondary 
storage.


Few years ago, I send two patches to KVM community:
[1]http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-09/msg00655.html
[2]http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-09/msg01662.html
The [2] is already in KVM upstream, the [1] is not checked in at that
time, but it's supported later on, with the so called "disk-only"
snapshot.

In ACS release, we(Citrix QA team) usually test it on RHEL 6, which
doesn't have above functionalities, that's why I say the kvm snapshot
is not supported by default. But if you are using latest kvm
distribution, you will get this feature. Maybe we should support newer
version of KVM distribution better, such as the upcoming Ubuntu 14.04
etc?


Edison,

This is a good idea, especially as RHEL7 is coming and it has pretty 
neat features.
Even with EL6 qemu-kvm-rhev that I built[1] most of this stuff is 
working great 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Virt_Live_Snapshots , even VM 
snapshots could be supported.
I'll probably get back to the list with more questions about how to 
enable VM snapshots later this week.


[1] - http://li.nux.ro/download/nux/tmp/kvm-rhev/el6/

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Edison Su]

> -Original Message-
> From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 8:37 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
> 
> On 03.01.2014 15:17, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> > I know Hugo made something to include it in the rpm. I'm not sure if
> > this is on the 4.2 branch. Look in the root dir of the archive.
> >
> > @David: you casted a -1. Can you get your conscience to retract that?
> > @all: how do we go from here?
> 
> The RPMs that I used are here in case anyone can work out the commit id,
> http://tmp.nux.ro/w7F-cloudsnap42/
> As far as I am concerned you guys can do your thing and release this.
> 
> Uncharacteristically the change to qemu-img in EL 6.5 not only broke previous
> ACS functionality, but also affected Openstack and I think oVirt, from what I
> figured out searching the net.
> Next time I'll have to remember not to blame ACS first. :)
> 
> AFAIK EL6 users can either stick with 6.4 or older or use
> http://li.nux.ro/download/nux/tmp/kvm-rhev/el6/ - and hope RedHat fixes
> this booboo.

Regarding to KVM binaries, in order to make volume snapshot working with 
cloudstack, we need KVM hypervisor support following features:
1. disk only snapshot, don't save vm memory(saving vm memory usually takes 
several seconds. In RHEL <6.3, it will even take few minutes for a vm with 
large memory. It means user vm will be paused for that long time, during 
snapshot, which may be not acceptable for many users).
2. be able to backup snapshot from primary storage to secondary storage. 

Few years ago, I send two patches to KVM community: 
[1]http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-09/msg00655.html
[2]http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-09/msg01662.html
The [2] is already in KVM upstream, the [1] is not checked in at that time, but 
it's supported later on, with the so called "disk-only" snapshot.

In ACS release, we(Citrix QA team) usually test it on RHEL 6, which doesn't 
have above functionalities, that's why I say the kvm snapshot is not supported 
by default. But if you are using latest kvm distribution, you will get this 
feature. Maybe we should support newer version of KVM distribution better, such 
as the upcoming Ubuntu 14.04 etc?

> 
> --
> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
> 
> Nux!
> www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Suresh Sadhu]

Thanks Nux and happy Newyear :-)

Regards
Sadhu


-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro] 
Sent: 03 January 2014 22:07
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

On 03.01.2014 15:17, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> I know Hugo made something to include it in the rpm. I'm not sure if 
> this is on the 4.2 branch. Look in the root dir of the archive.
> 
> @David: you casted a -1. Can you get your conscience to retract that?
> @all: how do we go from here?

The RPMs that I used are here in case anyone can work out the commit id, 
http://tmp.nux.ro/w7F-cloudsnap42/
As far as I am concerned you guys can do your thing and release this.

Uncharacteristically the change to qemu-img in EL 6.5 not only broke previous 
ACS functionality, but also affected Openstack and I think oVirt, from what I 
figured out searching the net.
Next time I'll have to remember not to blame ACS first. :)

AFAIK EL6 users can either stick with 6.4 or older or use 
http://li.nux.ro/download/nux/tmp/kvm-rhev/el6/ - and hope RedHat fixes this 
booboo.

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Nux!]

On 03.01.2014 15:17, Daan Hoogland wrote:

I know Hugo made something to include it in the rpm. I'm not sure if
this is on the 4.2 branch. Look in the root dir of the archive.

@David: you casted a -1. Can you get your conscience to retract that?
@all: how do we go from here?


The RPMs that I used are here in case anyone can work out the commit 
id, http://tmp.nux.ro/w7F-cloudsnap42/

As far as I am concerned you guys can do your thing and release this.

Uncharacteristically the change to qemu-img in EL 6.5 not only broke 
previous ACS functionality, but also affected Openstack and I think 
oVirt, from what I figured out searching the net.

Next time I'll have to remember not to blame ACS first. :)

AFAIK EL6 users can either stick with 6.4 or older or use 
http://li.nux.ro/download/nux/tmp/kvm-rhev/el6/ - and hope RedHat fixes 
this booboo.


--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Daan Hoogland]

I know Hugo made something to include it in the rpm. I'm not sure if
this is on the 4.2 branch. Look in the root dir of the archive.

@David: you casted a -1. Can you get your conscience to retract that?
@all: how do we go from here?

regards

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Nux!  wrote:
> On 03.01.2014 14:32, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>
>> This spin was created by Abhinandan at the 17th so, give us a commit
>> id so we can determine if we can release it, can you?
>
>
> Would this commit id be somewhere in the RPMs? Cause I long wiped out the VM
> used to build them.
> Anyway, the 17th should also be ok afaic, the problem I had seems to be
> related to KVM and the disappearence of the "-s" option for qemu-img from EL
> 6.4 to EL 6.5.
>
> Lucian
>
>
> --
> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>
> Nux!
> www.nux.ro

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Abhinandan Prateek]

On 03/01/14 8:11 pm, "Nux!"  wrote:

>On 03.01.2014 14:32, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>> This spin was created by Abhinandan at the 17th so, give us a commit
>> id so we can determine if we can release it, can you?
>
>Would this commit id be somewhere in the RPMs? Cause I long wiped out
>the VM used to build them.
>Anyway, the 17th should also be ok afaic, the problem I had seems to be
>related to KVM and the disappearence of the "-s" option for qemu-img
>from EL 6.4 to EL 6.5.
>
Nux,

  This is the commit corresponding to RC
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=1b2b58f
e352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
You can take look at the git there and it will be easy to check that the
git-hib build included the changes till this commit, and nothing after
that.
As of now it if the build included the changes till 17 Dec then we can say
for sure that you tested the build same as this RC.

-abhi


>

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Nux!]

On 03.01.2014 14:32, Daan Hoogland wrote:

This spin was created by Abhinandan at the 17th so, give us a commit
id so we can determine if we can release it, can you?


Would this commit id be somewhere in the RPMs? Cause I long wiped out 
the VM used to build them.
Anyway, the 17th should also be ok afaic, the problem I had seems to be 
related to KVM and the disappearence of the "-s" option for qemu-img 
from EL 6.4 to EL 6.5.


Lucian

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Daan Hoogland]

This spin was created by Abhinandan at the 17th so, give us a commit
id so we can determine if we can release it, can you?

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Nux!  wrote:
> On 03.01.2014 14:17, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>
>> sudha, nux,
>>
>> getting back to the vote at hand; are we talking about the 4.2.1
>> release candidate (or a later snapshot from that branch)
>
>
> In all these tests I used a build from github 4.2 master as of 21st of
> December 2013. Not sure if that's later than RC1.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>
> Nux!
> www.nux.ro

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Nux!]

On 03.01.2014 14:17, Daan Hoogland wrote:

sudha, nux,

getting back to the vote at hand; are we talking about the 4.2.1
release candidate (or a later snapshot from that branch)


In all these tests I used a build from github 4.2 master as of 21st of 
December 2013. Not sure if that's later than RC1.



--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Daan Hoogland]

sudha, nux,

getting back to the vote at hand; are we talking about the 4.2.1
release candidate (or a later snapshot from that branch)

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Nux!  wrote:
> On 03.01.2014 13:54, Sudha Ponnaganti wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Nux for confirmation. Is it okay to close this issue in JIRA ??
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks and yes. I can also confirm qemu-img-rhev-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6 works
> fine with GlusterFS share mount point, at least the snapshotting part.
>
> Lucian
>
>
> --
> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>
> Nux!
> www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Nux!]

On 03.01.2014 13:54, Sudha Ponnaganti wrote:

Thanks Nux for confirmation. Is it okay to close this issue in JIRA ??


Hi,

Thanks and yes. I can also confirm qemu-img-rhev-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6 
works fine with GlusterFS share mount point, at least the snapshotting 
part.


Lucian

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Sudha Ponnaganti]

Thanks Nux for confirmation. Is it okay to close this issue in JIRA ??

-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro] 
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 12:33 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

On 03.01.2014 07:40, Nux! wrote:
> Guys, this is really confusing!
> First of all I could swear I had this feature working on me previously 
> on a similar setup, second of all why has your colleague Sadhu said 
> this is working[1]?
> Also Andrei Mikhailovsky claims in this same thread the feature is 
> working, though he is facing other issues (launching new VMs from 
> volume backups/snapshots).

Ok, I think I got it. For EL6 (CentOS6) users the workaround is to use a 
patched version of KVM, then all the features start working (btw "VM snapshots" 
could work as well with this!).
The confusion comes from the fact the issue is not present in Ubuntu latest for 
example since they package a newer kvm, so this differs from one distro to 
another.

With the version from RHEV everything worked great and I'll test this soon with 
GlusterFS shared mount point as well.

More here
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5709?focusedCommentId=13861329&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13861329

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Nux!]

On 03.01.2014 07:40, Nux! wrote:

Guys, this is really confusing!
First of all I could swear I had this feature working on me
previously on a similar setup, second of all why has your colleague
Sadhu said this is working[1]?
Also Andrei Mikhailovsky claims in this same thread the feature is
working, though he is facing other issues (launching new VMs from
volume backups/snapshots).


Ok, I think I got it. For EL6 (CentOS6) users the workaround is to use 
a patched version of KVM, then all the features start working (btw "VM 
snapshots" could work as well with this!).
The confusion comes from the fact the issue is not present in Ubuntu 
latest for example since they package a newer kvm, so this differs from 
one distro to another.


With the version from RHEV everything worked great and I'll test this 
soon with GlusterFS shared mount point as well.


More here
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5709?focusedCommentId=13861329&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13861329

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Nux!]

On 02.01.2014 23:41, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:

-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 2:56 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

On 02.01.2014 22:12, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:

 [Animesh] Nux, as Edison mentioned KVM Snapshot are not supported in
ACS. We use customized qemu internally which allows us to take
snapshots but cannot be redistributed in ACS [Animesh] because of
license incompatibility


I know[1], my issue is not with "VM snapshots", it's with "volumes
snapshots" in the Storage section.

[1] - BTW for KVM live snapshots to work in EL6, one can simply
rebuild the stock SRPM with "rhev" option, I think, I have to test
this a bit more. See e.g.
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.ovirt.user/13381


[Animesh] VM Snapshot is not supported for KVM at this time. I am
also referring to Volume Snapshot.  KVM Snapshots are not supported
for a long time. Here is an old email from Edison calling it out [2]
during 4.0 time

[2] http://markmail.org/thread/c6edaeeiulfkm6or


Guys, this is really confusing!
First of all I could swear I had this feature working on me previously 
on a similar setup, second of all why has your colleague Sadhu said this 
is working[1]?
Also Andrei Mikhailovsky claims in this same thread the feature is 
working, though he is facing other issues (launching new VMs from volume 
backups/snapshots).


What are my options now? When is KVM volume snapshot/backup expected to 
work? This is basic functionality that customers will expect.


[1] - 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5393?focusedCommentId=13859469&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13859469


--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Animesh Chaturvedi]

-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro] 
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 2:56 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

On 02.01.2014 22:12, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>  [Animesh] Nux, as Edison mentioned KVM Snapshot are not supported in 
> ACS. We use customized qemu internally which allows us to take 
> snapshots but cannot be redistributed in ACS [Animesh] because of 
> license incompatibility

I know[1], my issue is not with "VM snapshots", it's with "volumes snapshots" 
in the Storage section.

[1] - BTW for KVM live snapshots to work in EL6, one can simply rebuild the 
stock SRPM with "rhev" option, I think, I have to test this a bit more. See e.g.
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.ovirt.user/13381


[Animesh] VM Snapshot is not supported for KVM at this time. I am also 
referring to Volume Snapshot.  KVM Snapshots are not supported for a long time. 
Here is an old email from Edison calling it out [2] during 4.0 time

[2] http://markmail.org/thread/c6edaeeiulfkm6or
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Nux!]

On 02.01.2014 22:12, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:

 [Animesh] Nux, as Edison mentioned KVM Snapshot are not supported in
ACS. We use customized qemu internally which allows us to take
snapshots but cannot be redistributed in ACS
[Animesh] because of license incompatibility


I know[1], my issue is not with "VM snapshots", it's with "volumes 
snapshots" in the Storage section.


[1] - BTW for KVM live snapshots to work in EL6, one can simply rebuild 
the stock SRPM with "rhev" option, I think, I have to test this a bit 
more. See e.g.

http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.ovirt.user/13381



--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Animesh Chaturvedi]

-Original Message-
From: Animesh Chaturvedi 
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 2:11 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Edison Su
Subject: RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC



-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:48 AM
To: Edison Su
Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

On 31.12.2013 23:47, Edison Su wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
>> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 6:35 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
>> 
>> On 23.12.2013 05:42, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
>>> It gives me immense pleasure to inform that the vote to label this 
>>> ASF
>>> 4.2.1 RC as the GA release has been passed with following stats:
>> 
>> Can someone check KVM volume snapshots before declaring this GA? It's 
>> been consistently broken for me in 4.2.1-SNAPSHOT with NFS as well as 
>> GlusterFS shared mount point.
>> It was working in 4.2.0 afaicr.
> 
> In the ACS release(since 4.0), KVM snapshot only works when CLVM is 
> used as primary storage, otherwise, taking snapshot in KVM will fail, 
> as there is no formal way to backup snapshot from primary storage to 
> secondary storage.

In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5393 some people clearly 
used this feature with NFS, you must be referring to something else. Maybe "VM 
snapshots"?


 [Animesh] Nux, as Edison mentioned KVM Snapshot are not supported in ACS. We 
use customized qemu internally which allows us to take snapshots but cannot be 
redistributed in ACS
[Animesh] because of license incompatibility

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Animesh Chaturvedi]

-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:48 AM
To: Edison Su
Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

On 31.12.2013 23:47, Edison Su wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
>> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 6:35 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
>> 
>> On 23.12.2013 05:42, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
>>> It gives me immense pleasure to inform that the vote to label this 
>>> ASF
>>> 4.2.1 RC as the GA release has been passed with following stats:
>> 
>> Can someone check KVM volume snapshots before declaring this GA? It's 
>> been consistently broken for me in 4.2.1-SNAPSHOT with NFS as well as 
>> GlusterFS shared mount point.
>> It was working in 4.2.0 afaicr.
> 
> In the ACS release(since 4.0), KVM snapshot only works when CLVM is 
> used as primary storage, otherwise, taking snapshot in KVM will fail, 
> as there is no formal way to backup snapshot from primary storage to 
> secondary storage.

In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5393 some people clearly 
used this feature with NFS, you must be referring to something else. Maybe "VM 
snapshots"?


 [Animesh] Nux, as Edison mentioned KVM Snapshot are not supported in ACS. We 
use customized qemu internally which allows us to take snapshots but cannot be 
redistributed in ACS

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Nux!]

On 31.12.2013 19:48, Sudha Ponnaganti wrote:

Nux,

Defect 5393 [1]  is not reproducible in 4.3 so that got closed. Can
you open a new one for 4.2.1 with exact problem you are having.


Done.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5709

I have installed a new ACS today, single-host to keep things minimal, 
with the RPMs built from the 21Dec github. Same problem occurs 
consistently.


HTH
Lucian

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Nux!]

On 31.12.2013 23:47, Edison Su wrote:

-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 6:35 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

On 23.12.2013 05:42, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
It gives me immense pleasure to inform that the vote to label this 
ASF

4.2.1 RC as the GA release has been passed with following stats:


Can someone check KVM volume snapshots before declaring this GA? It's
been consistently broken for me in 4.2.1-SNAPSHOT with NFS as well as
GlusterFS shared mount point.
It was working in 4.2.0 afaicr.


In the ACS release(since 4.0), KVM snapshot only works when CLVM is
used as primary storage, otherwise, taking snapshot in KVM will fail,
as there is no formal way to backup snapshot from primary storage to
secondary storage.


In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5393 some people 
clearly used this feature with NFS, you must be referring to something 
else. Maybe "VM snapshots"?


--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Nux!]

On 31.12.2013 23:47, Edison Su wrote:

-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 6:35 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

On 23.12.2013 05:42, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
It gives me immense pleasure to inform that the vote to label this 
ASF

4.2.1 RC as the GA release has been passed with following stats:


Can someone check KVM volume snapshots before declaring this GA? It's
been consistently broken for me in 4.2.1-SNAPSHOT with NFS as well as
GlusterFS shared mount point.
It was working in 4.2.0 afaicr.


In the ACS release(since 4.0), KVM snapshot only works when CLVM is
used as primary storage, otherwise, taking snapshot in KVM will fail,
as there is no formal way to backup snapshot from primary storage to
secondary storage.


Hi Edison,

I remember taking snapshots (backups) with previous versions of 4.x and 
I never used CLVM, perhaps it was local storage, need to re-check.


--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Edison Su]

> -Original Message-
> From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 6:35 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
> 
> On 23.12.2013 05:42, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
> > It gives me immense pleasure to inform that the vote to label this ASF
> > 4.2.1 RC as the GA release has been passed with following stats:
> 
> Can someone check KVM volume snapshots before declaring this GA? It's
> been consistently broken for me in 4.2.1-SNAPSHOT with NFS as well as
> GlusterFS shared mount point.
> It was working in 4.2.0 afaicr.

In the ACS release(since 4.0), KVM snapshot only works when CLVM is used as 
primary storage, otherwise, taking snapshot in KVM will fail, as there is no 
formal way to backup snapshot from primary storage to secondary storage.

> 
> I've sent several emails about this as well as bothering people in
> CLOUDSTACK-5393.
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cloudstack.apache.org/msg20123.html
> 
> HTH
> Lucian
> 
> --
> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
> 
> Nux!
> www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Sudha Ponnaganti]

Nux,

Defect 5393 [1]  is not reproducible in 4.3 so that got closed. Can you open a 
new one for 4.2.1 with exact problem you are having.  Also looks slightly 
different from 5393 issue. 
Running KVM with a GlusterFS shared mount point on cloudstack-4.2-223b272, 
snapshots consistently fail to be backed up. They get stuck in 
"CreatedOnPrimary" status. 

If you do not have any objection can we have a GTM to resolve it. I can invite 
Suresh also for this call as he has tried it both on 4.3 and latest 4.2.1.  
There is a request to try on 4.3 RC3 candidate drop as well. Will wait for his 
response before the call. 

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5393

Thanks
/Sudha

-Original Message-
From: Suresh Sadhu [mailto:suresh.sa...@citrix.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 9:25 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

Yes ,I  have tested  with latest from 4.2.1.

Regards
sadhu

-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] 
Sent: 31 December 2013 18:47
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

Suresh, did you test with latest from 4.2.1 or the 4.2.1 RC3 that's up for vote?
--David

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Suresh Sadhu  wrote:
> I  have pulled latest code and tried on 4.2 branch and not able to reproduce 
> the issue (mine is nfs based  primary storage).can you please  provide more 
> details on your setup .
>
>
>
> Regards
> Sadhu
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: 30 December 2013 02:26
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
>
> -1 (binding) because of the snapshot issues pointed out by Nux,
> (CLOUDSTACK-5393)
>
> --David
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Abhinandan Prateek 
>  wrote:
>> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate the 
>> previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>>
>> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h
>> =
>> refs/heads/4.2
>> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>>
>> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed 
>> here:
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain
>> ;
>> f=CHANGES;hb=4.2
>>
>> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at the 
>> same location):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>>
>> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>
>> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>>
>> 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)
>>

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Suresh Sadhu]

Yes ,I  have tested  with latest from 4.2.1.

Regards
sadhu

-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] 
Sent: 31 December 2013 18:47
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

Suresh, did you test with latest from 4.2.1 or the 4.2.1 RC3 that's up for vote?
--David

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Suresh Sadhu  wrote:
> I  have pulled latest code and tried on 4.2 branch and not able to reproduce 
> the issue (mine is nfs based  primary storage).can you please  provide more 
> details on your setup .
>
>
>
> Regards
> Sadhu
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: 30 December 2013 02:26
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
>
> -1 (binding) because of the snapshot issues pointed out by Nux,
> (CLOUDSTACK-5393)
>
> --David
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Abhinandan Prateek 
>  wrote:
>> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate the 
>> previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>>
>> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h
>> =
>> refs/heads/4.2
>> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>>
>> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed 
>> here:
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain
>> ;
>> f=CHANGES;hb=4.2
>>
>> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at the 
>> same location):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>>
>> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>
>> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>>
>> 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)
>>

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[David Nalley]

Suresh, did you test with latest from 4.2.1 or the 4.2.1 RC3 that's up
for vote?
--David

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Suresh Sadhu  wrote:
> I  have pulled latest code and tried on 4.2 branch and not able to reproduce 
> the issue (mine is nfs based  primary storage).can you please  provide more 
> details on your setup .
>
>
>
> Regards
> Sadhu
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: 30 December 2013 02:26
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
>
> -1 (binding) because of the snapshot issues pointed out by Nux,
> (CLOUDSTACK-5393)
>
> --David
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Abhinandan Prateek 
>  wrote:
>> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate the 
>> previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>>
>> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=
>> refs/heads/4.2
>> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>>
>> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed 
>> here:
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;
>> f=CHANGES;hb=4.2
>>
>> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at the 
>> same location):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>>
>> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>
>> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>>
>> 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)
>>

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Nux!]

On 31.12.2013 12:48, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:

Suresh has tried reproducing the issue as per comment in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5393.
The issue is not reproducible. As per comment in 5393 I think Nux! is
going to verify, hoping that it is done at the earliest.

Thank you guys !
-abhi


Can you guys share the RPMs you used in your tests? I could make an 
effort and test today.
My last tests failed both in Basic and Adv zone, with or without 
glusterfs involved at all.


Lucian

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Abhinandan Prateek]

Suresh has tried reproducing the issue as per comment in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-5393.
The issue is not reproducible. As per comment in 5393 I think Nux! is
going to verify, hoping that it is done at the earliest.

Thank you guys !
-abhi

On 23/12/13 8:04 pm, "Nux!"  wrote:

>On 23.12.2013 05:42, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
>> It gives me immense pleasure to inform that the vote to label this ASF
>> 4.2.1 RC as the GA release has been passed with following stats:
>
>Can someone check KVM volume snapshots before declaring this GA? It's
>been consistently broken for me in 4.2.1-SNAPSHOT with NFS as well as
>GlusterFS shared mount point.
>It was working in 4.2.0 afaicr.
>
>I've sent several emails about this as well as bothering people in
>CLOUDSTACK-5393.
>http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cloudstack.apache.org/msg20123.html
>
>HTH
>Lucian
>
>-- 
>Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>
>Nux!
>www.nux.ro

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Suresh Sadhu]

I  have pulled latest code and tried on 4.2 branch and not able to reproduce 
the issue (mine is nfs based  primary storage).can you please  provide more 
details on your setup .



Regards
Sadhu



-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] 
Sent: 30 December 2013 02:26
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

-1 (binding) because of the snapshot issues pointed out by Nux,
(CLOUDSTACK-5393)

--David

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Abhinandan Prateek 
 wrote:
> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate the 
> previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>
> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=
> refs/heads/4.2
> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>
> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed 
> here:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;
> f=CHANGES;hb=4.2
>
> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at the 
> same location):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>
> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>
> 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)
>

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Sudha Ponnaganti]

Checking on 5393 and will get back shortly. Same set of tests ran before as 
well during 4.2. Will check on those test results or retest to see if anything 
regressed since release as lot of check ins are happening. 

Thanks
/sudha

-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] 
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:56 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

-1 (binding) because of the snapshot issues pointed out by Nux,
(CLOUDSTACK-5393)

--David

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Abhinandan Prateek 
 wrote:
> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate the 
> previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>
> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=
> refs/heads/4.2
> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>
> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed 
> here:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;
> f=CHANGES;hb=4.2
>
> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at the 
> same location):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>
> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>
> 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)
>

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[David Nalley]

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Abhinandan Prateek
 wrote:
> Every time a RC is made it is flagged off due to some bug or the other at
> the last moment.
>
> I was wondering if before a RC is cut we take a pre-vote making sure that
> everyone has got sufficient time to test the branch for the features they
> are looking for ?
>
> Another suggestion is that since 4.3 is now close, why put our energies in
> 4.2.1 and instead focus on 4.3.
>
> -abhi
>


So I have several comments here. Basically it boils down to this:

1. Most people won't test until there is a real RC. It's a catch-22 -
manual testing is time intensive, people don't want to waste their
time if things are constantly changing; so they will only expend the
effort on testing when something is a release candidate.  If we want
more confidence that a branch is in a decent state, that requires more
automation and testing. (see more on this below)

2. IMO we can't abandon 4.2.1 - we set the expectation that it would
be delivered and need to follow on with that expectation.

3. Patch releases (or feature releases for that matter) shouldn't
result in core functionality being worse than the previous release.

So some quick comments on testing - our testing should have caught
CLOUDSTACK-5393 (actually it did, it just caught it for 4.3 instead;
and manual testing by Nux and Andrei found that it applied to 4.2.1.)
This suggests that we either didn't run the test suite against RC3 or
that we did and didn't catch/report the bug. Reviewing
jenkins.buildacloud.org doesn't show any suggestion that the 4.2
branch is having anything past unit tests run against it, so that
leaves us really with manual reviewing, which as you noted, ends up
with last minute bugs. We also don't have a good way to compare a
4.2.1 release candidate against what was released for 4.2. (I know,
plenty of complaints, not a lot of solutions.)

--David

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Abhinandan Prateek]

Every time a RC is made it is flagged off due to some bug or the other at
the last moment.

I was wondering if before a RC is cut we take a pre-vote making sure that
everyone has got sufficient time to test the branch for the features they
are looking for ?

Another suggestion is that since 4.3 is now close, why put our energies in
4.2.1 and instead focus on 4.3.

-abhi


On 30/12/13 2:26 am, "David Nalley"  wrote:

>-1 (binding) because of the snapshot issues pointed out by Nux,
>(CLOUDSTACK-5393)
>
>--David
>
>On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
> wrote:
>> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to
>>generate the previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>>
>> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>>
>> 
>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=ref
>>s/heads/4.2
>> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>>
>> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be
>>accessed here:
>> 
>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=C
>>HANGES;hb=4.2
>>
>> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at
>>the same location):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>>
>> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>
>> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>>
>> 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)
>>

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[David Nalley]

-1 (binding) because of the snapshot issues pointed out by Nux,
(CLOUDSTACK-5393)

--David

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
 wrote:
> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate the 
> previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>
> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.2
> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>
> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed 
> here:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES;hb=4.2
>
> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at the 
> same location):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>
> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>
> 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)
>

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Abhinandan Prateek]

Thanks Chip, I was not aware of this requirement.

On 23/12/13 7:40 pm, "Chip Childers"  wrote:

>Unfortunately, no...  this vote has not passed yet.  We need 1 more
>PMC vote.  Wei is a committer, but we have to have 3 PMC +1 votes for
>legal reasons.
>
>PMC members, please vote!
>
>On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
> wrote:
>> It gives me immense pleasure to inform that the vote to label this ASF
>> 4.2.1 RC as the GA release has been passed with following stats:
>>
>> +1   : 6 votes includes 3 bindings from Daan, Wei and Chip.
>> +/-0 : from Tomasz.
>>
>> Some issues have been pointed out by Tomasz (5422,5332 & 3806) and
>>Andrei
>> (issue with KVM:S3). These will be addresses in the next release (4.3).
>>
>> I would also like to thank team members who persistently tried respins
>>and
>> helped point and fix issues. Also, members who made substantial effort
>>to
>> fix docs, which was the cause of the first respin.
>>
>> Needless to say, that there were many who tirelessly worked behind the
>> scenes to fix bugs, test, manage resources etc in order to make this a
>> quality release.
>>
>> Next steps:
>>
>> 1. Tag the git commit with 4.2.1_GA
>> 2. Building and publishing packages (DEB and RPM)
>> 3. Publishing the docs here cloudstack.apache.org/docs
>> 4. Put the artefacts for download
>> 5. Finalise the release announcement:
>> 
>>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/4.2.1+Release+Anno
>>un
>> cement
>> 6. Announce the release on the website
>>
>> I will take care of 1,5,6
>> In the past Wido took care of 2 (DEB packages) not sure who built the
>>RPMs.
>> Sebastien I am assuming that you will take care of 3.
>> Chip it seems you took care of 4 for 4.2.
>>
>> -abhi
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17/12/13 7:19 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek"
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate
>>>the previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>>>
>>>Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>>>
>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=re
>>>fs
>>>/heads/4.2
>>>commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>>>
>>>List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be
>>>accessed
>>>here:
>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=
>>>CH
>>>ANGES;hb=4.2
>>>
>>>Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at
>>>the same location):
>>>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>>>
>>>PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>>>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>>
>>>Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>>>
>>>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)
>>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Andrei Mikhailovsky]

e database: 


mysql> select * from vm_template where id=216 or id=217; 
+-+---+---+--++--+--+-+--+--++-+-++--+---+-+---+-+--+-+-+-+-++--+--+-+---+--+-+--+
 
| id | unique_name | name | uuid | public | featured | type | hvm | bits | url 
| format | created | removed | account_id | checksum | display_text | 
enable_password | enable_sshkey | guest_os_id | bootable | prepopulate | 
cross_zones | extractable | hypervisor_type | source_template_id | template_tag 
| sort_key | size | state | update_count | updated | dynamically_scalable | 
+-+---+---+--++--+--+-+--+--++-+-++--+---+-+---+-+--+-+-+-+-++--+--+-+---+--+-+--+
 
| 216 | 36d0799f-cf61-4252-ac15-e9b8ec5b9d3b | ubuntu-template-to-remove | 
700026eb-06a4-4e0c-9a0a-1512ee1d4ffe | 0 | 0 | USER | 1 | 64 | NULL | QCOW2 | 
2013-12-22 23:48:04 | 2013-12-23 13:50:10 | 2 | NULL | 
ubuntu-template-to-remove | 0 | 0 | 164 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | KVM | 203 | NULL | 0 
| 10737418240 | NULL | 0 | NULL | 0 | 
| 217 | 33345b965-eab0-3a63-a54a-205e6474c724 | ubuntu-syslog-tmpl-remove | 
ca6d40a4-54b7-463a-bb31-6e40be1abdc0 | 1 | 0 | USER | 1 | 64 | NULL | RAW | 
2013-12-23 15:43:53 | NULL | 5 | NULL | ubuntu-syslog-tmpl-remove | 0 | 0 | 164 
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | KVM | 203 | NULL | 0 | 8589901824 | NULL | 0 | NULL | 0 | 
+-+---+---+--++--+--+-+--+--++-+-++--+---+-+---+-+--+-+-+-+-++--+--+-+---+--+-+--+
 
2 rows in set (0.00 sec) 

>From the database above, the template with id=216 is fully working and I can 
>create vms from it. The broken template is with id=217. 

As far as I can see, this is a major blocker issue. I can't find any other way 
of rolling back a snapshot apart from doing snapshot > template > vm. 
Therefore, as far as I can see, the whole point of snapshots is broken as there 
is no use for the snapshots if you can not create / roll back vms from them. 

Thanks 

Andrei 


- Original Message -

From: "Andrei Mikhailovsky"  
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org 
Sent: Monday, 23 December, 2013 2:52:37 PM 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 


There is definitely an issue with snapshotting for kvm. 


I've been done some tests, but not finished yet. What i've discovered is that 
if you take a snapshot of a live server, the snapshot creation works perfectly 
well for me. The snapshot is created and saved without an error. However, i've 
tried to convert the snapshot into a template and create a new vm using this 
template. The snapshot to template works fine. However, creating a vm from that 
template did not work. 


If I try to create a template from a stopped server directly without using the 
snapshot, the vm creation from the template works perfectly well. 


I've not done much investigation, however, i've noticed that when I am doing vm 
creation using snapshot and template process the database shows QCOW2 as the 
file format. Doing directly via the template is showing RAW file format. I will 
do some more testing to verify and post management server logs. 


Andrei 


- Original Message ----- 

From: "Nux!"  
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org 
Sent: Monday, 23 December, 2013 2:34:31 PM 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 

On 23.12.2013 05:42, Abhinandan Prateek wrote: 
> It gives me immense pleasure to inform that the vote to label this ASF 
> 4.2.1 RC as the GA release has been passed with following stats: 

Can someone check KVM volume snapshots before declaring this GA? It's 
been consistently broken for me in 4.2.1-SNAPSHOT with NFS as well as 
GlusterFS shared mount point. 
It was working in 4.2.0 afaicr. 

I've sent several emails about this as well as bothering people in 
CLOUDSTACK-5393. 
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cloudstack.apache.org/msg20123.html 

HTH 
Lucian 

-- 
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! 

Nux! 
www.nux.ro 

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Andrei Mikhailovsky]

There is definitely an issue with snapshotting for kvm. 


I've been done some tests, but not finished yet. What i've discovered is that 
if you take a snapshot of a live server, the snapshot creation works perfectly 
well for me. The snapshot is created and saved without an error. However, i've 
tried to convert the snapshot into a template and create a new vm using this 
template. The snapshot to template works fine. However, creating a vm from that 
template did not work. 


If I try to create a template from a stopped server directly without using the 
snapshot, the vm creation from the template works perfectly well. 


I've not done much investigation, however, i've noticed that when I am doing vm 
creation using snapshot and template process the database shows QCOW2 as the 
file format. Doing directly via the template is showing RAW file format. I will 
do some more testing to verify and post management server logs. 


Andrei 


- Original Message -

From: "Nux!"  
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org 
Sent: Monday, 23 December, 2013 2:34:31 PM 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 

On 23.12.2013 05:42, Abhinandan Prateek wrote: 
> It gives me immense pleasure to inform that the vote to label this ASF 
> 4.2.1 RC as the GA release has been passed with following stats: 

Can someone check KVM volume snapshots before declaring this GA? It's 
been consistently broken for me in 4.2.1-SNAPSHOT with NFS as well as 
GlusterFS shared mount point. 
It was working in 4.2.0 afaicr. 

I've sent several emails about this as well as bothering people in 
CLOUDSTACK-5393. 
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cloudstack.apache.org/msg20123.html 

HTH 
Lucian 

-- 
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! 

Nux! 
www.nux.ro 

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Nux!]

On 23.12.2013 05:42, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:

It gives me immense pleasure to inform that the vote to label this ASF
4.2.1 RC as the GA release has been passed with following stats:


Can someone check KVM volume snapshots before declaring this GA? It's 
been consistently broken for me in 4.2.1-SNAPSHOT with NFS as well as 
GlusterFS shared mount point.

It was working in 4.2.0 afaicr.

I've sent several emails about this as well as bothering people in 
CLOUDSTACK-5393.

http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cloudstack.apache.org/msg20123.html

HTH
Lucian

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Chip Childers]

Unfortunately, no...  this vote has not passed yet.  We need 1 more
PMC vote.  Wei is a committer, but we have to have 3 PMC +1 votes for
legal reasons.

PMC members, please vote!

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
 wrote:
> It gives me immense pleasure to inform that the vote to label this ASF
> 4.2.1 RC as the GA release has been passed with following stats:
>
> +1   : 6 votes includes 3 bindings from Daan, Wei and Chip.
> +/-0 : from Tomasz.
>
> Some issues have been pointed out by Tomasz (5422,5332 & 3806) and Andrei
> (issue with KVM:S3). These will be addresses in the next release (4.3).
>
> I would also like to thank team members who persistently tried respins and
> helped point and fix issues. Also, members who made substantial effort to
> fix docs, which was the cause of the first respin.
>
> Needless to say, that there were many who tirelessly worked behind the
> scenes to fix bugs, test, manage resources etc in order to make this a
> quality release.
>
> Next steps:
>
> 1. Tag the git commit with 4.2.1_GA
> 2. Building and publishing packages (DEB and RPM)
> 3. Publishing the docs here cloudstack.apache.org/docs
> 4. Put the artefacts for download
> 5. Finalise the release announcement:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/4.2.1+Release+Announ
> cement
> 6. Announce the release on the website
>
> I will take care of 1,5,6
> In the past Wido took care of 2 (DEB packages) not sure who built the RPMs.
> Sebastien I am assuming that you will take care of 3.
> Chip it seems you took care of 4 for 4.2.
>
> -abhi
>
>
>
> On 17/12/13 7:19 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek" 
> wrote:
>
>>The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate
>>the previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>>
>>Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>>
>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs
>>/heads/4.2
>>commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>>
>>List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed
>>here:
>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=CH
>>ANGES;hb=4.2
>>
>>Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at
>>the same location):
>>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>>
>>PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>
>>Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>>
>>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)
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Abhinandan Prateek]

It gives me immense pleasure to inform that the vote to label this ASF
4.2.1 RC as the GA release has been passed with following stats:

+1   : 6 votes includes 3 bindings from Daan, Wei and Chip.
+/-0 : from Tomasz.

Some issues have been pointed out by Tomasz (5422,5332 & 3806) and Andrei
(issue with KVM:S3). These will be addresses in the next release (4.3).

I would also like to thank team members who persistently tried respins and
helped point and fix issues. Also, members who made substantial effort to
fix docs, which was the cause of the first respin.

Needless to say, that there were many who tirelessly worked behind the
scenes to fix bugs, test, manage resources etc in order to make this a
quality release.

Next steps:

1. Tag the git commit with 4.2.1_GA
2. Building and publishing packages (DEB and RPM)
3. Publishing the docs here cloudstack.apache.org/docs
4. Put the artefacts for download
5. Finalise the release announcement:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/4.2.1+Release+Announ
cement
6. Announce the release on the website

I will take care of 1,5,6
In the past Wido took care of 2 (DEB packages) not sure who built the RPMs.
Sebastien I am assuming that you will take care of 3.
Chip it seems you took care of 4 for 4.2.

-abhi



On 17/12/13 7:19 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek" 
wrote:

>The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate
>the previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>
>Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>
>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs
>/heads/4.2
>commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>
>List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed
>here:
>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=CH
>ANGES;hb=4.2
>
>Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at
>the same location):
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>
>PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
>Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>
>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)
>

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Andrei Mikhailovsky]

Marcus, that's the problem, this information is passed on regardless of iso 
attachment state, which is not the case with nfs. So, probably a bug submission 
is in order. 

Andrei 

- Original Message -

From: "Marcus Sorensen"  
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org 
Sent: Friday, 20 December, 2013 4:38:11 PM 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 

Really quick, Andrei, the command looks like it's passing both the 
root volume and an iso template as disks. I'm assuming you still have 
the iso attached to the VM. If this is not the case, we probably need 
to know about it in the bug submission as well. With the iso detached, 
it should not show up in the VM config being passed and the migration 
should work. 

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Marcus Sorensen  wrote: 
> Andrei, 
> There are one or two spots in the KVM code that still assume that 
> secondary storage is always NFS. In this particular example, it seems 
> like maybe you're running into this: 
> 
> if (volume.getType() == Volume.Type.ISO && data.getPath() != null) { 
> NfsTO nfsStore = (NfsTO)store; 
> 
> In this case, isos are assumed to be on NFS. Since we can't mount S3 
> storage and use an iso directly, I assume it should instead be passing 
> the NFS backing store location rather than the S3 origin of the 
> template. Please open a ticket for it if one hasn't been already. 
> 
> Please keep in mind that when a new feature emerges, it's usually not 
> perfect with the broad range of platforms and things you can do with 
> each. In general, bugfix releases are only held up for regressions 
> (since we don't want to make existing environments worse) or high 
> priority/security fixes. Blocker bugs. Any other fixes that make it 
> into a particular release are just nice to have. As such, new feature 
> issues generally aren't deemed blockers since they're no worse than 
> they started out. That said, if you raise an issue like this it can be 
> fairly high priority for 4.3, and the fix can be backported for a 
> future bugfix release for 4.2. 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Chip Childers  
> wrote: 
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 01:49:14PM +, Abhinandan Prateek wrote: 
>>> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate 
>>> the previous RC did not get pushed to repo. 
>>> 
>>> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around: 
>>> 
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.2
>>>  
>>> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5 
>>> 
>>> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed 
>>> here: 
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES;hb=4.2
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at the 
>>> same location): 
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/ 
>>> 
>>> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1): 
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS 
>>> 
>>> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST). 
>>> 
>>> 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) 
>>> 
>> 
>> +1 (binding) 
>> 
>> Testing limited to validation of the artifact checksums and signatures, 
>> as well as a licensing check: 
>> 
>> AUTOMATED TESTING RESULTS: 
>> [PASS] rm -Rf /tmp/cloudstack 
>> [PASS] rm -Rf ~/.m2 
>> [PASS] mkdir /tmp/cloudstack 
>> [PASS] wget --no-check-certificate -q 
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS 
>> [PASS] wget --no-check-certificate -q 
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2
>>  
>> [PASS] wget --no-check-certificate -q 
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.asc
>>  
>> [PASS] wget --no-check-certificate -q 
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.md5
>>  
>> [PASS] wget --no-check-certificate -q 
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.sha
>>  
>> [PASS] gpg --verify apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.asc 
>> [PASS] gpg --print-md MD5 apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Marcus Sorensen]

Really quick, Andrei, the command looks like it's passing both the
root volume and an iso template as disks. I'm assuming you still have
the iso attached to the VM. If this is not the case, we probably need
to know about it in the bug submission as well. With the iso detached,
it should not show up in the VM config being passed and the migration
should work.

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Marcus Sorensen  wrote:
> Andrei,
>   There are one or two spots in the KVM code that still assume that
> secondary storage is always NFS. In this particular example, it seems
> like maybe you're running into this:
>
> if (volume.getType() == Volume.Type.ISO && data.getPath() != null) {
> NfsTO nfsStore = (NfsTO)store;
>
> In this case, isos are assumed to be on NFS. Since we can't mount S3
> storage and use an iso directly, I assume it should instead be passing
> the NFS backing store location rather than the S3 origin of the
> template. Please open a ticket for it if one hasn't been already.
>
> Please keep in mind that when a new feature emerges, it's usually not
> perfect with the broad range of platforms and things you can do with
> each. In general, bugfix releases are only held up for regressions
> (since we don't want to make existing environments worse) or high
> priority/security fixes. Blocker bugs. Any other fixes that make it
> into a particular release are just nice to have. As such, new feature
> issues generally aren't deemed blockers since they're no worse than
> they started out. That said, if you raise an issue like this it can be
> fairly high priority for 4.3, and the fix can be backported for a
> future bugfix release for 4.2.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Chip Childers  
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 01:49:14PM +, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
>>> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate 
>>> the previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>>>
>>> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.2
>>> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>>>
>>> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed 
>>> here:
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES;hb=4.2
>>>
>>> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at the 
>>> same location):
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>>>
>>> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>>
>>> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>>>
>>> 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)
>>>
>>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> Testing limited to validation of the artifact checksums and signatures,
>> as well as a licensing check:
>>
>> AUTOMATED TESTING RESULTS:
>> [PASS]  rm -Rf /tmp/cloudstack
>> [PASS]  rm -Rf ~/.m2
>> [PASS]  mkdir /tmp/cloudstack
>> [PASS]  wget --no-check-certificate -q 
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>> [PASS]  wget --no-check-certificate -q 
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2
>> [PASS]  wget --no-check-certificate -q 
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.asc
>> [PASS]  wget --no-check-certificate -q 
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.md5
>> [PASS]  wget --no-check-certificate -q 
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.sha
>> [PASS]  gpg --verify apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.asc
>> [PASS]  gpg --print-md MD5 apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2 | diff - 
>> apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.md5
>> [PASS]  gpg --print-md SHA512 apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2 | diff 
>> - apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.sha
>> [PASS]  mkdir /tmp/cloudstack/git
>> [PASS]  mkdir /tmp/cloudstack/tree
>> [PASS]  git clone -q 
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/cloudstack.git /tmp/cloudstack/git
>> [PASS]  git archive --prefix=/tmp/cloudstack/tree/ 
>> 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5 | tar Pxf -
>> [PASS]  tar xvfj apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2
>> [PASS]  diff -r /tmp/cloudstack/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src 
>> /tmp/cloudstack/tree
>> [PASS]  mvn --projects='org.apache.cloudstack:cloudstack' 
>> org.apache.rat:apache-rat-plugin:0.8:check

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Marcus Sorensen]

Andrei,
  There are one or two spots in the KVM code that still assume that
secondary storage is always NFS. In this particular example, it seems
like maybe you're running into this:

if (volume.getType() == Volume.Type.ISO && data.getPath() != null) {
NfsTO nfsStore = (NfsTO)store;

In this case, isos are assumed to be on NFS. Since we can't mount S3
storage and use an iso directly, I assume it should instead be passing
the NFS backing store location rather than the S3 origin of the
template. Please open a ticket for it if one hasn't been already.

Please keep in mind that when a new feature emerges, it's usually not
perfect with the broad range of platforms and things you can do with
each. In general, bugfix releases are only held up for regressions
(since we don't want to make existing environments worse) or high
priority/security fixes. Blocker bugs. Any other fixes that make it
into a particular release are just nice to have. As such, new feature
issues generally aren't deemed blockers since they're no worse than
they started out. That said, if you raise an issue like this it can be
fairly high priority for 4.3, and the fix can be backported for a
future bugfix release for 4.2.


On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Chip Childers  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 01:49:14PM +, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
>> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate the 
>> previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>>
>> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.2
>> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>>
>> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed 
>> here:
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES;hb=4.2
>>
>> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at the 
>> same location):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>>
>> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>
>> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>>
>> 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)
>>
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Testing limited to validation of the artifact checksums and signatures,
> as well as a licensing check:
>
> AUTOMATED TESTING RESULTS:
> [PASS]  rm -Rf /tmp/cloudstack
> [PASS]  rm -Rf ~/.m2
> [PASS]  mkdir /tmp/cloudstack
> [PASS]  wget --no-check-certificate -q 
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
> [PASS]  wget --no-check-certificate -q 
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2
> [PASS]  wget --no-check-certificate -q 
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.asc
> [PASS]  wget --no-check-certificate -q 
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.md5
> [PASS]  wget --no-check-certificate -q 
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.sha
> [PASS]  gpg --verify apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.asc
> [PASS]  gpg --print-md MD5 apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2 | diff - 
> apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.md5
> [PASS]  gpg --print-md SHA512 apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2 | diff 
> - apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.sha
> [PASS]  mkdir /tmp/cloudstack/git
> [PASS]  mkdir /tmp/cloudstack/tree
> [PASS]  git clone -q 
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/cloudstack.git /tmp/cloudstack/git
> [PASS]  git archive --prefix=/tmp/cloudstack/tree/ 
> 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5 | tar Pxf -
> [PASS]  tar xvfj apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2
> [PASS]  diff -r /tmp/cloudstack/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src 
> /tmp/cloudstack/tree
> [PASS]  mvn --projects='org.apache.cloudstack:cloudstack' 
> org.apache.rat:apache-rat-plugin:0.8:check

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Chip Childers]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 01:49:14PM +, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate the 
> previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
> 
> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
> 
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.2
> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
> 
> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed 
> here:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES;hb=4.2
> 
> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at the 
> same location):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
> 
> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
> 
> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
> 
> 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)
>

+1 (binding)

Testing limited to validation of the artifact checksums and signatures,
as well as a licensing check:

AUTOMATED TESTING RESULTS:
[PASS]  rm -Rf /tmp/cloudstack
[PASS]  rm -Rf ~/.m2
[PASS]  mkdir /tmp/cloudstack
[PASS]  wget --no-check-certificate -q 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
[PASS]  wget --no-check-certificate -q 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2
[PASS]  wget --no-check-certificate -q 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.asc
[PASS]  wget --no-check-certificate -q 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.md5
[PASS]  wget --no-check-certificate -q 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.sha
[PASS]  gpg --verify apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.asc
[PASS]  gpg --print-md MD5 apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2 | diff - 
apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.md5
[PASS]  gpg --print-md SHA512 apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2 | diff - 
apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2.sha
[PASS]  mkdir /tmp/cloudstack/git
[PASS]  mkdir /tmp/cloudstack/tree
[PASS]  git clone -q https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/cloudstack.git 
/tmp/cloudstack/git
[PASS]  git archive --prefix=/tmp/cloudstack/tree/ 
1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5 | tar Pxf -
[PASS]  tar xvfj apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src.tar.bz2
[PASS]  diff -r /tmp/cloudstack/apache-cloudstack-4.2.1-src 
/tmp/cloudstack/tree
[PASS]  mvn --projects='org.apache.cloudstack:cloudstack' 
org.apache.rat:apache-rat-plugin:0.8:check

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Andrei Mikhailovsky]

I don't mind, but I do hope someone else could verify this apart from me. Even 
though i've tried it three times on three different clean installs, I could be 
doing something wrong. 

Andrei 

- Original Message -

From: "Abhinandan Prateek"  
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org 
Sent: Friday, 20 December, 2013 10:47:13 AM 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 

I think at this time we will just document these as known issues. Any 
comments ? 

-abhi 

On 20/12/13 11:42 am, "Pavan Bandarupally"  
wrote: 

>In 4.2.1 , I have tested the feature where user has the option to choose 
>single part or multi part upload with S3 store. It worked fine in my 
>environment. The feature works as below: 
> 
>If you have a snapshot or template or anything that needs to be uploaded 
>to S3 based secondary storage, it can be uploaded either by single part 
>upload or multipart upload and what will be used can be dictated by a 
>global setting [s3.singleupload.max.size: The maximum size limit for S3 
>single part upload API(in GB). If it is set to 0, then it means always 
>use multi-part upload to upload object to S3. If it is set to -1, then it 
>means always use single-part upload to upload object to S3 ] 
> 
>I have taken snapshots which were greater/lesser than the size set in the 
>parameter above and they got successfully uploaded to S3 store using 
>multipart/singlepart respectively. The same is the case with templates as 
>well. 
> 
>Live migration is something that I haven't tested with S3 store but to my 
>knowledge, I don't think it has any relationship with S3 store I guess. 
>Once your VM is deployed from a template on S3 store the template will be 
>first copied to primary store from secondary store for the VM to be 
>deployed. 
> 
>Regards, 
>Pavan 
>-Original Message- 
>From: Andrei Mikhailovsky [mailto:and...@arhont.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:20 PM 
>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org 
>Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 
> 
> 
> 
>Daan, 
> 
>Not sure if this is relevant to this release, but the feature list of 
>4.2.0 and 4.2.1 shows that S3 is supported for secondary storage. If this 
>feature is broken and can't be used in production does it not mean that 
>it has to be fixed in the next release? I am not a developer, so I do not 
>really know the criteria for version releases. 
> 
>Cheers 
> 
>- Original Message - 
> 
>From: "Daan Hoogland"  
>To: "dev"  
>Sent: Thursday, 19 December, 2013 3:04:54 PM 
>Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 
> 
>Andrei, 
> 
>This sounds like a serious issue but not like an issue related to the 
>release. Unless off course you have been able to get it working in 
>4.2.0 and it is now broken. 
> 
>If not it will have to move to a future release. 
> 
>I do not use s3 based secondary storage so I can't verify. 
> 
>regards, 
>Daan 
> 
>On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Andrei Mikhailovsky  
>wrote: 
>> Not that I want to delay the release even more, but has anyone tested 
>>the S3 Secondary Storage functionality of the 4.2.1? I can't be the only 
>>one with issues. I've tried installing ACS three times and the issue is 
>>reproducable. 
>> 
>> Things like migration of vms installed from templates or isos stored in 
>>S3 is not working. 
>> 
>> 2013-12-10 18:48:28,067 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent] 
>>(agentRequest-Handler-4:null) Request:Seq 26-349831812: { Cmd , MgmtId: 
>>90520737989049, via: 26, Ver: v1, Flags: 100111, 
>>[{"com.cloud.agent.api.PrepareForMigrationCommand":{"vm":{"id":56,"name": 
>>"i-2-56-VM","type":"User","cpus":2,"minSpeed":2800,"maxSpeed":2800,"minRa 
>>m":2147483648,"maxRam":2147483648,"arch":"x86_64","os":"Apple Mac OS X 
>>10.6 
>>(32-bit)","bootArgs":"","rebootOnCrash":false,"enableHA":true,"limitCpuUs 
>>e":false,"enableDynamicallyScaleVm":false,"vncPassword":"5c7980f779d3ffa3 
>>","params":{},"uuid":"bd033b3d-f86a-4d6f-bb8c-06e61b7e1d62","disks":[{"da 
>>ta":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.VolumeObjectTO":{"uuid":"6c9c3134- 
>>bfcf-4b8f-8508-db7d8fea5404","volumeType":"ROOT","dataStore":{"org.apache 
>>.cloudstack.storage.to.PrimaryDataStoreTO":{"uuid":"4a1a6908-7c45-3232-a2 
>>50-550650

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Andrei Mikhailovsky]

Pavan, 

I've done some tests with secondary storage as nfs and S3 and I do not have any 
issues live migrating with nfs storage. However, with S3 there is an issue. If 
the vm is installed from a template/iso stored on the S3 secondary storage it 
fails to migrate because ACS passes on the iso/template details to the 
migration target host regardless if the iso is attached to the vm or not. This 
is not happening with nfs. 

If you have an opportunity, could you please check to see if you are 
experiencing similar behavior? 

Andrei 

- Original Message -

From: "Pavan Bandarupally"  
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org 
Sent: Friday, 20 December, 2013 6:12:42 AM 
Subject: RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 

In 4.2.1 , I have tested the feature where user has the option to choose single 
part or multi part upload with S3 store. It worked fine in my environment. The 
feature works as below: 

If you have a snapshot or template or anything that needs to be uploaded to S3 
based secondary storage, it can be uploaded either by single part upload or 
multipart upload and what will be used can be dictated by a global setting 
[s3.singleupload.max.size: The maximum size limit for S3 single part upload 
API(in GB). If it is set to 0, then it means always use multi-part upload to 
upload object to S3. If it is set to -1, then it means always use single-part 
upload to upload object to S3 ] 

I have taken snapshots which were greater/lesser than the size set in the 
parameter above and they got successfully uploaded to S3 store using 
multipart/singlepart respectively. The same is the case with templates as well. 

Live migration is something that I haven't tested with S3 store but to my 
knowledge, I don't think it has any relationship with S3 store I guess. Once 
your VM is deployed from a template on S3 store the template will be first 
copied to primary store from secondary store for the VM to be deployed. 

Regards, 
Pavan 
-Original Message- 
From: Andrei Mikhailovsky [mailto:and...@arhont.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:20 PM 
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 



Daan, 

Not sure if this is relevant to this release, but the feature list of 4.2.0 and 
4.2.1 shows that S3 is supported for secondary storage. If this feature is 
broken and can't be used in production does it not mean that it has to be fixed 
in the next release? I am not a developer, so I do not really know the criteria 
for version releases. 

Cheers 

- Original Message - 

From: "Daan Hoogland"  
To: "dev"  
Sent: Thursday, 19 December, 2013 3:04:54 PM 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 

Andrei, 

This sounds like a serious issue but not like an issue related to the release. 
Unless off course you have been able to get it working in 
4.2.0 and it is now broken. 

If not it will have to move to a future release. 

I do not use s3 based secondary storage so I can't verify. 

regards, 
Daan 

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Andrei Mikhailovsky  wrote: 
> Not that I want to delay the release even more, but has anyone tested the S3 
> Secondary Storage functionality of the 4.2.1? I can't be the only one with 
> issues. I've tried installing ACS three times and the issue is reproducable. 
> 
> Things like migration of vms installed from templates or isos stored in S3 is 
> not working. 
> 
> 2013-12-10 18:48:28,067 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent] 
> (agentRequest-Handler-4:null) Request:Seq 26-349831812: { Cmd , MgmtId: 
> 90520737989049, via: 26, Ver: v1, Flags: 100111, 
> [{"com.cloud.agent.api.PrepareForMigrationCommand":{"vm":{"id":56,"name":"i-2-56-VM","type":"User","cpus":2,"minSpeed":2800,"maxSpeed":2800,"minRam":2147483648,"maxRam":2147483648,"arch":"x86_64","os":"Apple
>  Mac OS X 10.6 
> (32-bit)","bootArgs":"","rebootOnCrash":false,"enableHA":true,"limitCpuUse":false,"enableDynamicallyScaleVm":false,"vncPassword":"5c7980f779d3ffa3","params":{},"uuid":"bd033b3d-f86a-4d6f-bb8c-06e61b7e1d62","disks":[{"data":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.VolumeObjectTO":{"uuid":"6c9c3134-bfcf-4b8f-8508-db7d8fea5404","volumeType":"ROOT","dataStore":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.PrimaryDataStoreTO":{"uuid":"4a1a6908-7c45-3232-a250-550650793b1c","id":9,"poolType":"RBD","host":"ceph.admin.lv","path":"cloudstack","port":6789}},"name":"ROOT-56","size"

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Abhinandan Prateek]

Daan,
  Yes, I hope none of the 4.2 functionality regresses.

On 20/12/13 4:33 pm, "Daan Hoogland"  wrote:

>Abhinandan,
>
>As long as no 4.2.0 functionality dissapears, I agree.
>
>On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
> wrote:
>> I think at this time we will just document these as known issues. Any
>> comments ?
>>
>> -abhi
>>
>> On 20/12/13 11:42 am, "Pavan Bandarupally"
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In 4.2.1 , I have tested the feature where user has the option to choose
>>>single part or multi part upload with S3 store. It worked fine in my
>>>environment. The feature works as below:
>>>
>>>If you have a snapshot or template or anything that needs to be uploaded
>>>to S3 based secondary storage, it can be uploaded either by single part
>>>upload or multipart upload and what will be used can be dictated by a
>>>global setting [s3.singleupload.max.size: The maximum size limit for S3
>>>single part upload API(in GB). If it is set to 0, then it means always
>>>use multi-part upload to upload object to S3. If it is set to -1, then
>>>it
>>>means always use single-part upload to upload object to S3 ]
>>>
>>>I have taken snapshots which were greater/lesser than the size set in
>>>the
>>>parameter above and they got successfully uploaded to S3 store using
>>>multipart/singlepart respectively. The same is the case with templates
>>>as
>>>well.
>>>
>>>Live migration is something that I haven't tested with S3 store but to
>>>my
>>>knowledge, I don't think it has any relationship with S3 store I guess.
>>>Once your VM is deployed from a template on S3 store the template will
>>>be
>>>first copied to primary store from secondary store for the VM to be
>>>deployed.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Pavan
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: Andrei Mikhailovsky [mailto:and...@arhont.com]
>>>Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:20 PM
>>>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Daan,
>>>
>>>Not sure if this is relevant to this release, but the feature list of
>>>4.2.0 and 4.2.1 shows that S3 is supported for secondary storage. If
>>>this
>>>feature is broken and can't be used in production does it not mean that
>>>it has to be fixed in the next release? I am not a developer, so I do
>>>not
>>>really know the criteria for version releases.
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>- Original Message -
>>>
>>>From: "Daan Hoogland" 
>>>To: "dev" 
>>>Sent: Thursday, 19 December, 2013 3:04:54 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
>>>
>>>Andrei,
>>>
>>>This sounds like a serious issue but not like an issue related to the
>>>release. Unless off course you have been able to get it working in
>>>4.2.0 and it is now broken.
>>>
>>>If not it will have to move to a future release.
>>>
>>>I do not use s3 based secondary storage so I can't verify.
>>>
>>>regards,
>>>Daan
>>>
>>>On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Andrei Mikhailovsky 
>>>wrote:
>>>> Not that I want to delay the release even more, but has anyone tested
>>>>the S3 Secondary Storage functionality of the 4.2.1? I can't be the
>>>>only
>>>>one with issues. I've tried installing ACS three times and the issue is
>>>>reproducable.
>>>>
>>>> Things like migration of vms installed from templates or isos stored
>>>>in
>>>>S3 is not working.
>>>>
>>>> 2013-12-10 18:48:28,067 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent]
>>>>(agentRequest-Handler-4:null) Request:Seq 26-349831812: { Cmd , MgmtId:
>>>>90520737989049, via: 26, Ver: v1, Flags: 100111,
>>>>[{"com.cloud.agent.api.PrepareForMigrationCommand":{"vm":{"id":56,"name
>>>>":
>>>>"i-2-56-VM","type":"User","cpus":2,"minSpeed":2800,"maxSpeed":2800,"min
>>>>Ra
>>>>m":2147483648,"maxRam":2147483648,"arch":"x86_64","os":"Apple Mac OS X
>>>>10.6
>>>>(32-bit)","bootArgs":"","rebootOnCrash":

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Daan Hoogland]

Abhinandan,

As long as no 4.2.0 functionality dissapears, I agree.

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
 wrote:
> I think at this time we will just document these as known issues. Any
> comments ?
>
> -abhi
>
> On 20/12/13 11:42 am, "Pavan Bandarupally" 
> wrote:
>
>>In 4.2.1 , I have tested the feature where user has the option to choose
>>single part or multi part upload with S3 store. It worked fine in my
>>environment. The feature works as below:
>>
>>If you have a snapshot or template or anything that needs to be uploaded
>>to S3 based secondary storage, it can be uploaded either by single part
>>upload or multipart upload and what will be used can be dictated by a
>>global setting [s3.singleupload.max.size: The maximum size limit for S3
>>single part upload API(in GB). If it is set to 0, then it means always
>>use multi-part upload to upload object to S3. If it is set to -1, then it
>>means always use single-part upload to upload object to S3 ]
>>
>>I have taken snapshots which were greater/lesser than the size set in the
>>parameter above and they got successfully uploaded to S3 store using
>>multipart/singlepart respectively. The same is the case with templates as
>>well.
>>
>>Live migration is something that I haven't tested with S3 store but to my
>>knowledge, I don't think it has any relationship with S3 store I guess.
>>Once your VM is deployed from a template on S3 store the template will be
>>first copied to primary store from secondary store for the VM to be
>>deployed.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Pavan
>>-----Original Message-
>>From: Andrei Mikhailovsky [mailto:and...@arhont.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:20 PM
>>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
>>
>>
>>
>>Daan,
>>
>>Not sure if this is relevant to this release, but the feature list of
>>4.2.0 and 4.2.1 shows that S3 is supported for secondary storage. If this
>>feature is broken and can't be used in production does it not mean that
>>it has to be fixed in the next release? I am not a developer, so I do not
>>really know the criteria for version releases.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>- Original Message -
>>
>>From: "Daan Hoogland" 
>>To: "dev" 
>>Sent: Thursday, 19 December, 2013 3:04:54 PM
>>Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
>>
>>Andrei,
>>
>>This sounds like a serious issue but not like an issue related to the
>>release. Unless off course you have been able to get it working in
>>4.2.0 and it is now broken.
>>
>>If not it will have to move to a future release.
>>
>>I do not use s3 based secondary storage so I can't verify.
>>
>>regards,
>>Daan
>>
>>On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Andrei Mikhailovsky 
>>wrote:
>>> Not that I want to delay the release even more, but has anyone tested
>>>the S3 Secondary Storage functionality of the 4.2.1? I can't be the only
>>>one with issues. I've tried installing ACS three times and the issue is
>>>reproducable.
>>>
>>> Things like migration of vms installed from templates or isos stored in
>>>S3 is not working.
>>>
>>> 2013-12-10 18:48:28,067 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent]
>>>(agentRequest-Handler-4:null) Request:Seq 26-349831812: { Cmd , MgmtId:
>>>90520737989049, via: 26, Ver: v1, Flags: 100111,
>>>[{"com.cloud.agent.api.PrepareForMigrationCommand":{"vm":{"id":56,"name":
>>>"i-2-56-VM","type":"User","cpus":2,"minSpeed":2800,"maxSpeed":2800,"minRa
>>>m":2147483648,"maxRam":2147483648,"arch":"x86_64","os":"Apple Mac OS X
>>>10.6
>>>(32-bit)","bootArgs":"","rebootOnCrash":false,"enableHA":true,"limitCpuUs
>>>e":false,"enableDynamicallyScaleVm":false,"vncPassword":"5c7980f779d3ffa3
>>>","params":{},"uuid":"bd033b3d-f86a-4d6f-bb8c-06e61b7e1d62","disks":[{"da
>>>ta":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.VolumeObjectTO":{"uuid":"6c9c3134-
>>>bfcf-4b8f-8508-db7d8fea5404","volumeType":"ROOT","dataStore":{"org.apache
>>>.cloudstack.storage.to.PrimaryDataStoreTO":{"uuid":"4a1a6908-7c45-3232-a2
&

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Abhinandan Prateek]

I think at this time we will just document these as known issues. Any
comments ?

-abhi

On 20/12/13 11:42 am, "Pavan Bandarupally" 
wrote:

>In 4.2.1 , I have tested the feature where user has the option to choose
>single part or multi part upload with S3 store. It worked fine in my
>environment. The feature works as below:
>
>If you have a snapshot or template or anything that needs to be uploaded
>to S3 based secondary storage, it can be uploaded either by single part
>upload or multipart upload and what will be used can be dictated by a
>global setting [s3.singleupload.max.size: The maximum size limit for S3
>single part upload API(in GB). If it is set to 0, then it means always
>use multi-part upload to upload object to S3. If it is set to -1, then it
>means always use single-part upload to upload object to S3 ]
>
>I have taken snapshots which were greater/lesser than the size set in the
>parameter above and they got successfully uploaded to S3 store using
>multipart/singlepart respectively. The same is the case with templates as
>well.
>
>Live migration is something that I haven't tested with S3 store but to my
>knowledge, I don't think it has any relationship with S3 store I guess.
>Once your VM is deployed from a template on S3 store the template will be
>first copied to primary store from secondary store for the VM to be
>deployed. 
>
>Regards,
>Pavan
>-Original Message-
>From: Andrei Mikhailovsky [mailto:and...@arhont.com]
>Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:20 PM
>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
>
>
>
>Daan, 
>
>Not sure if this is relevant to this release, but the feature list of
>4.2.0 and 4.2.1 shows that S3 is supported for secondary storage. If this
>feature is broken and can't be used in production does it not mean that
>it has to be fixed in the next release? I am not a developer, so I do not
>really know the criteria for version releases.
>
>Cheers 
>
>----- Original Message -
>
>From: "Daan Hoogland" 
>To: "dev" 
>Sent: Thursday, 19 December, 2013 3:04:54 PM
>Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
>
>Andrei, 
>
>This sounds like a serious issue but not like an issue related to the
>release. Unless off course you have been able to get it working in
>4.2.0 and it is now broken.
>
>If not it will have to move to a future release.
>
>I do not use s3 based secondary storage so I can't verify.
>
>regards,
>Daan 
>
>On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Andrei Mikhailovsky 
>wrote: 
>> Not that I want to delay the release even more, but has anyone tested
>>the S3 Secondary Storage functionality of the 4.2.1? I can't be the only
>>one with issues. I've tried installing ACS three times and the issue is
>>reproducable. 
>> 
>> Things like migration of vms installed from templates or isos stored in
>>S3 is not working.
>> 
>> 2013-12-10 18:48:28,067 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent]
>>(agentRequest-Handler-4:null) Request:Seq 26-349831812: { Cmd , MgmtId:
>>90520737989049, via: 26, Ver: v1, Flags: 100111,
>>[{"com.cloud.agent.api.PrepareForMigrationCommand":{"vm":{"id":56,"name":
>>"i-2-56-VM","type":"User","cpus":2,"minSpeed":2800,"maxSpeed":2800,"minRa
>>m":2147483648,"maxRam":2147483648,"arch":"x86_64","os":"Apple Mac OS X
>>10.6 
>>(32-bit)","bootArgs":"","rebootOnCrash":false,"enableHA":true,"limitCpuUs
>>e":false,"enableDynamicallyScaleVm":false,"vncPassword":"5c7980f779d3ffa3
>>","params":{},"uuid":"bd033b3d-f86a-4d6f-bb8c-06e61b7e1d62","disks":[{"da
>>ta":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.VolumeObjectTO":{"uuid":"6c9c3134-
>>bfcf-4b8f-8508-db7d8fea5404","volumeType":"ROOT","dataStore":{"org.apache
>>.cloudstack.storage.to.PrimaryDataStoreTO":{"uuid":"4a1a6908-7c45-3232-a2
>>50-550650793b1c","id":9,"poolType":"RBD","host":"ceph.admin.lv","path":"c
>>loudstack","port":6789}},"name":"ROOT-56","size":21474836480,"path":"754a
>>16ec-662c-4303-97f9-3168f1affbfb","volumeId":78,"vmName":"i-2-56-VM","acc
>>ountId":2,"format":"RAW","id":78,"h

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Pavan Bandarupally]

In 4.2.1 , I have tested the feature where user has the option to choose single 
part or multi part upload with S3 store. It worked fine in my environment. The 
feature works as below:

If you have a snapshot or template or anything that needs to be uploaded to S3 
based secondary storage, it can be uploaded either by single part upload or 
multipart upload and what will be used can be dictated by a global setting 
[s3.singleupload.max.size: The maximum size limit for S3 single part upload 
API(in GB). If it is set to 0, then it means always use multi-part upload to 
upload object to S3. If it is set to -1, then it means always use single-part 
upload to upload object to S3 ] 

I have taken snapshots which were greater/lesser than the size set in the 
parameter above and they got successfully uploaded to S3 store using 
multipart/singlepart respectively. The same is the case with templates as well.

Live migration is something that I haven't tested with S3 store but to my 
knowledge, I don't think it has any relationship with S3 store I guess. Once 
your VM is deployed from a template on S3 store the template will be first 
copied to primary store from secondary store for the VM to be deployed. 

Regards,
Pavan
-Original Message-
From: Andrei Mikhailovsky [mailto:and...@arhont.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:20 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC



Daan, 

Not sure if this is relevant to this release, but the feature list of 4.2.0 and 
4.2.1 shows that S3 is supported for secondary storage. If this feature is 
broken and can't be used in production does it not mean that it has to be fixed 
in the next release? I am not a developer, so I do not really know the criteria 
for version releases. 

Cheers 

- Original Message -

From: "Daan Hoogland" 
To: "dev" 
Sent: Thursday, 19 December, 2013 3:04:54 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 

Andrei, 

This sounds like a serious issue but not like an issue related to the release. 
Unless off course you have been able to get it working in
4.2.0 and it is now broken. 

If not it will have to move to a future release. 

I do not use s3 based secondary storage so I can't verify. 

regards,
Daan 

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Andrei Mikhailovsky  wrote: 
> Not that I want to delay the release even more, but has anyone tested the S3 
> Secondary Storage functionality of the 4.2.1? I can't be the only one with 
> issues. I've tried installing ACS three times and the issue is reproducable. 
> 
> Things like migration of vms installed from templates or isos stored in S3 is 
> not working. 
> 
> 2013-12-10 18:48:28,067 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent] 
> (agentRequest-Handler-4:null) Request:Seq 26-349831812: { Cmd , MgmtId: 
> 90520737989049, via: 26, Ver: v1, Flags: 100111, 
> [{"com.cloud.agent.api.PrepareForMigrationCommand":{"vm":{"id":56,"name":"i-2-56-VM","type":"User","cpus":2,"minSpeed":2800,"maxSpeed":2800,"minRam":2147483648,"maxRam":2147483648,"arch":"x86_64","os":"Apple
>  Mac OS X 10.6 
> (32-bit)","bootArgs":"","rebootOnCrash":false,"enableHA":true,"limitCpuUse":false,"enableDynamicallyScaleVm":false,"vncPassword":"5c7980f779d3ffa3","params":{},"uuid":"bd033b3d-f86a-4d6f-bb8c-06e61b7e1d62","disks":[{"data":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.VolumeObjectTO":{"uuid":"6c9c3134-bfcf-4b8f-8508-db7d8fea5404","volumeType":"ROOT","dataStore":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.PrimaryDataStoreTO":{"uuid":"4a1a6908-7c45-3232-a250-550650793b1c","id":9,"poolType":"RBD","host":"ceph.admin.lv","path":"cloudstack","port":6789}},"name":"ROOT-56","size":21474836480,"path":"754a16ec-662c-4303-97f9-3168f1affbfb","volumeId":78,"vmName":"i-2-56-VM","accountId":2,"format":"RAW","id":78,"hypervisorType":"KVM"}},"diskSeq":0,"type":"ROOT"},{"data":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.TemplateObjectTO":{"path":"template/tmpl/2/212/212-2-e6277a31-7fb6-3ca1-9486-c383c9027cdb/ub.iso","origUrl":"http://www.emigrant.lv/ub.iso","uuid":"75badc3e-ca5e-490c-8450-5f4397c43789","id":212,"format":"ISO","accountId":2,"hvm":true,"displayText":"Ubunt

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Andrei Mikhailovsky]

Daan, 

Not sure if this is relevant to this release, but the feature list of 4.2.0 and 
4.2.1 shows that S3 is supported for secondary storage. If this feature is 
broken and can't be used in production does it not mean that it has to be fixed 
in the next release? I am not a developer, so I do not really know the criteria 
for version releases. 

Cheers 

- Original Message -

From: "Daan Hoogland"  
To: "dev"  
Sent: Thursday, 19 December, 2013 3:04:54 PM 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 

Andrei, 

This sounds like a serious issue but not like an issue related to the 
release. Unless off course you have been able to get it working in 
4.2.0 and it is now broken. 

If not it will have to move to a future release. 

I do not use s3 based secondary storage so I can't verify. 

regards, 
Daan 

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Andrei Mikhailovsky  wrote: 
> Not that I want to delay the release even more, but has anyone tested the S3 
> Secondary Storage functionality of the 4.2.1? I can't be the only one with 
> issues. I've tried installing ACS three times and the issue is reproducable. 
> 
> Things like migration of vms installed from templates or isos stored in S3 is 
> not working. 
> 
> 2013-12-10 18:48:28,067 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent] 
> (agentRequest-Handler-4:null) Request:Seq 26-349831812: { Cmd , MgmtId: 
> 90520737989049, via: 26, Ver: v1, Flags: 100111, 
> [{"com.cloud.agent.api.PrepareForMigrationCommand":{"vm":{"id":56,"name":"i-2-56-VM","type":"User","cpus":2,"minSpeed":2800,"maxSpeed":2800,"minRam":2147483648,"maxRam":2147483648,"arch":"x86_64","os":"Apple
>  Mac OS X 10.6 
> (32-bit)","bootArgs":"","rebootOnCrash":false,"enableHA":true,"limitCpuUse":false,"enableDynamicallyScaleVm":false,"vncPassword":"5c7980f779d3ffa3","params":{},"uuid":"bd033b3d-f86a-4d6f-bb8c-06e61b7e1d62","disks":[{"data":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.VolumeObjectTO":{"uuid":"6c9c3134-bfcf-4b8f-8508-db7d8fea5404","volumeType":"ROOT","dataStore":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.PrimaryDataStoreTO":{"uuid":"4a1a6908-7c45-3232-a250-550650793b1c","id":9,"poolType":"RBD","host":"ceph.admin.lv","path":"cloudstack","port":6789}},"name":"ROOT-56","size":21474836480,"path":"754a16ec-662c-4303-97f9-3168f1affbfb","volumeId":78,"vmName":"i-2-56-VM","accountId":2,"format":"RAW","id":78,"hypervisorType":"KVM"}},"diskSeq":0,"type":"ROOT"},{"data":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.TemplateObjectTO":{"path":"template/tmpl/2/212/212-2-e6277a31-7fb6-3ca1-9486-c383c9027cdb/ub.iso","origUrl":"http://www.emigrant.lv/ub.iso","uuid":"75badc3e-ca5e-490c-8450-5f4397c43789","id":212,"format":"ISO","accountId":2,"hvm":true,"displayText":"Ubuntu
>  Server 12.04.3 
> 64bit","imageDataStore":{"com.cloud.agent.api.to.S3TO":{"id":11,"uuid":"ee84fa05-3ad5-4822-89fd-0e1817421b19","endPoint":"s3.admin.lv","bucketName":"cs-secondary","httpsFlag":false,"created":"Dec
>  10, 2013 3:40:55 
> PM","enableRRS":false}},"name":"212-2-e6277a31-7fb6-3ca1-9486-c383c9027cdb","hypervisorType":"None"}},"diskSeq":3,"type":"ISO"}],"nics":[{"deviceId":0,"networkRateMbps":200,"defaultNic":true,"uuid":"58903a2b-ef3c-40e5-8b83-99b343ee7474","ip":"10.50.1.249","netmask":"255.255.255.0","gateway":"10.50.1.1","mac":"02:00:30:44:00:01","dns1":"91.224.1.10","dns2":"212.70.182.77","broadcastType":"Vlan","type":"Guest","broadcastUri":"vlan://578","isolationUri":"vlan://578","isSecurityGroupEnabled":false,"name":"cloudbr0"},{"deviceId":1,"networkRateMbps":200,"defaultNic":false,"uuid":"c0df2b28-e97b-4eda-91e0-71a171ec5509","ip":"10.50.1.

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Daan Hoogland]

Andrei,

This sounds like a serious issue but not like an issue related to the
release. Unless off course you have been able to get it working in
4.2.0 and it is now broken.

If not it will have to move to a future release.

I do not use s3 based secondary storage so I can't verify.

regards,
Daan

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Andrei Mikhailovsky  wrote:
> Not that I want to delay the release even more, but has anyone tested the S3 
> Secondary Storage functionality of the 4.2.1? I can't be the only one with 
> issues. I've tried installing ACS three times and the issue is reproducable.
>
> Things like migration of vms installed from templates or isos stored in S3 is 
> not working.
>
> 2013-12-10 18:48:28,067 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent] 
> (agentRequest-Handler-4:null) Request:Seq 26-349831812:  { Cmd , MgmtId: 
> 90520737989049, via: 26, Ver: v1, Flags: 100111, 
> [{"com.cloud.agent.api.PrepareForMigrationCommand":{"vm":{"id":56,"name":"i-2-56-VM","type":"User","cpus":2,"minSpeed":2800,"maxSpeed":2800,"minRam":2147483648,"maxRam":2147483648,"arch":"x86_64","os":"Apple
>  Mac OS X 10.6 
> (32-bit)","bootArgs":"","rebootOnCrash":false,"enableHA":true,"limitCpuUse":false,"enableDynamicallyScaleVm":false,"vncPassword":"5c7980f779d3ffa3","params":{},"uuid":"bd033b3d-f86a-4d6f-bb8c-06e61b7e1d62","disks":[{"data":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.VolumeObjectTO":{"uuid":"6c9c3134-bfcf-4b8f-8508-db7d8fea5404","volumeType":"ROOT","dataStore":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.PrimaryDataStoreTO":{"uuid":"4a1a6908-7c45-3232-a250-550650793b1c","id":9,"poolType":"RBD","host":"ceph.admin.lv","path":"cloudstack","port":6789}},"name":"ROOT-56","size":21474836480,"path":"754a16ec-662c-4303-97f9-3168f1affbfb","volumeId":78,"vmName":"i-2-56-VM","accountId":2,"format":"RAW","id":78,"hypervisorType":"KVM"}},"diskSeq":0,"type":"ROOT"},{"data":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.TemplateObjectTO":{"path":"template/tmpl/2/212/212-2-e6277a31-7fb6-3ca1-9486-c383c9027cdb/ub.iso","origUrl":"http://www.emigrant.lv/ub.iso","uuid":"75badc3e-ca5e-490c-8450-5f4397c43789","id":212,"format":"ISO","accountId":2,"hvm":true,"displayText":"Ubuntu
>  Server 12.04.3 
> 64bit","imageDataStore":{"com.cloud.agent.api.to.S3TO":{"id":11,"uuid":"ee84fa05-3ad5-4822-89fd-0e1817421b19","endPoint":"s3.admin.lv","bucketName":"cs-secondary","httpsFlag":false,"created":"Dec
>  10, 2013 3:40:55 
> PM","enableRRS":false}},"name":"212-2-e6277a31-7fb6-3ca1-9486-c383c9027cdb","hypervisorType":"None"}},"diskSeq":3,"type":"ISO"}],"nics":[{"deviceId":0,"networkRateMbps":200,"defaultNic":true,"uuid":"58903a2b-ef3c-40e5-8b83-99b343ee7474","ip":"10.50.1.249","netmask":"255.255.255.0","gateway":"10.50.1.1","mac":"02:00:30:44:00:01","dns1":"91.224.1.10","dns2":"212.70.182.77","broadcastType":"Vlan","type":"Guest","broadcastUri":"vlan://578","isolationUri":"vlan://578","isSecurityGroupEnabled":false,"name":"cloudbr0"},{"deviceId":1,"networkRateMbps":200,"defaultNic":false,"uuid":"c0df2b28-e97b-4eda-91e0-71a171ec5509","ip":"10.50.1.27","netmask":"255.255.255.0","gateway":"10.50.1.1","mac":"02:00:6a:3e:00:10","dns1":"91.224.1.10","dns2":"212.70.182.
>
> 2013-12-10 18:48:28,124 WARN  [cloud.agent.Agent] 
> (agentRequest-Handler-4:null) Caught:
> java.lang.ClassCastException: com.cloud.agent.api.to.S3TO cannot be cast to 
> com.cloud.agent.api.to.NfsTO
> at 
> com.cloud.hypervisor.kvm.resource.LibvirtComputingResource.getVolumePath(LibvirtComputingResource.java:362

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Abhinandan Prateek]

On 19/12/13 8:10 pm, "Tomasz Zięba"  wrote:

>+/- 0 because of simple bugs:
>CLOUDSTACK-5422
>CLOUDSTACK-5332
>CLOUDSTACK-3806

The tickets should addressed in upcoming release, have updated the fix
version.

-abhi 

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Andrei Mikhailovsky]

Not that I want to delay the release even more, but has anyone tested the S3 
Secondary Storage functionality of the 4.2.1? I can't be the only one with 
issues. I've tried installing ACS three times and the issue is reproducable.

Things like migration of vms installed from templates or isos stored in S3 is 
not working.

2013-12-10 18:48:28,067 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent] (agentRequest-Handler-4:null) 
Request:Seq 26-349831812:  { Cmd , MgmtId: 90520737989049, via: 26, Ver: v1, 
Flags: 100111, 
[{"com.cloud.agent.api.PrepareForMigrationCommand":{"vm":{"id":56,"name":"i-2-56-VM","type":"User","cpus":2,"minSpeed":2800,"maxSpeed":2800,"minRam":2147483648,"maxRam":2147483648,"arch":"x86_64","os":"Apple
 Mac OS X 10.6 
(32-bit)","bootArgs":"","rebootOnCrash":false,"enableHA":true,"limitCpuUse":false,"enableDynamicallyScaleVm":false,"vncPassword":"5c7980f779d3ffa3","params":{},"uuid":"bd033b3d-f86a-4d6f-bb8c-06e61b7e1d62","disks":[{"data":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.VolumeObjectTO":{"uuid":"6c9c3134-bfcf-4b8f-8508-db7d8fea5404","volumeType":"ROOT","dataStore":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.PrimaryDataStoreTO":{"uuid":"4a1a6908-7c45-3232-a250-550650793b1c","id":9,"poolType":"RBD","host":"ceph.admin.lv","path":"cloudstack","port":6789}},"name":"ROOT-56","size":21474836480,"path":"754a16ec-662c-4303-97f9-3168f1affbfb","volumeId":78,"vmName":"i-2-56-VM","accountId":2,"format":"RAW","id":78,"hypervisorType":"KVM"}},"diskSeq":0,"type":"ROOT"},{"data":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.TemplateObjectTO":{"path":"template/tmpl/2/212/212-2-e6277a31-7fb6-3ca1-9486-c383c9027cdb/ub.iso","origUrl":"http://www.emigrant.lv/ub.iso","uuid":"75badc3e-ca5e-490c-8450-5f4397c43789","id":212,"format":"ISO","accountId":2,"hvm":true,"displayText":"Ubuntu
 Server 12.04.3 
64bit","imageDataStore":{"com.cloud.agent.api.to.S3TO":{"id":11,"uuid":"ee84fa05-3ad5-4822-89fd-0e1817421b19","endPoint":"s3.admin.lv","bucketName":"cs-secondary","httpsFlag":false,"created":"Dec
 10, 2013 3:40:55 
PM","enableRRS":false}},"name":"212-2-e6277a31-7fb6-3ca1-9486-c383c9027cdb","hypervisorType":"None"}},"diskSeq":3,"type":"ISO"}],"nics":[{"deviceId":0,"networkRateMbps":200,"defaultNic":true,"uuid":"58903a2b-ef3c-40e5-8b83-99b343ee7474","ip":"10.50.1.249","netmask":"255.255.255.0","gateway":"10.50.1.1","mac":"02:00:30:44:00:01","dns1":"91.224.1.10","dns2":"212.70.182.77","broadcastType":"Vlan","type":"Guest","broadcastUri":"vlan://578","isolationUri":"vlan://578","isSecurityGroupEnabled":false,"name":"cloudbr0"},{"deviceId":1,"networkRateMbps":200,"defaultNic":false,"uuid":"c0df2b28-e97b-4eda-91e0-71a171ec5509","ip":"10.50.1.27","netmask":"255.255.255.0","gateway":"10.50.1.1","mac":"02:00:6a:3e:00:10","dns1":"91.224.1.10","dns2":"212.70.182.

2013-12-10 18:48:28,124 WARN  [cloud.agent.Agent] (agentRequest-Handler-4:null) 
Caught:
java.lang.ClassCastException: com.cloud.agent.api.to.S3TO cannot be cast to 
com.cloud.agent.api.to.NfsTO
at 
com.cloud.hypervisor.kvm.resource.LibvirtComputingResource.getVolumePath(LibvirtComputingResource.java:3628)
at 
com.cloud.hypervisor.kvm.resource.LibvirtComputingResource.execute(LibvirtComputingResource.java:2985)
at 
com.cloud.hypervisor.kvm.resource.LibvirtComputingResource.executeRequest(LibvirtComputingResource.java:1196)
at com.cloud.agent.Agent.processRequest(Agent.java:525)
at com.cloud.agent.Agent$AgentRequestHandler.doTask(Agent.java:852)
at com.cloud.utils.nio.Task.run(Task.java:83)
at 
java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Tomasz Zięba]

+/- 0 because of simple bugs:
CLOUDSTACK-5422
CLOUDSTACK-5332
CLOUDSTACK-3806

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Zięba
Twitter: @TZieba
LinkedIn: 
pl.linkedin.com/pub/tomasz-zięba-ph-d/3b/7a8/ab6/

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Daan Hoogland]

H,

We've started running our custom 4.2.1 build 24 hours ago on our internal 
projects/employees system. The build is based on the last fix by Kishan's fix 
for CLOUDSTACK-5145. The environment is a hybrid xen/vmware environment with 
nicira networking and nexenta storage.

No issues have come up so far so:
+1 (binding)

I have done a rebase on the specified commit with a smoke test in a dev-env and 
am satisfied with it.

Regards,
Daan

-Original Message-
From: Srikanteswararao Talluri [mailto:srikanteswararao.tall...@citrix.com] 
Sent: woensdag 18 december 2013 9:37
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

+1

~Talluri

On 18/12/13 10:57 am, "Sailaja Mada"  wrote:

>+1
>
>Validated from the specified commit id.
>
>Thanks,
>Sailaja.M
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com]
>Sent: 17 December 2013 19:19
>To: CloudStack Dev
>Subject: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
>
>The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to 
>generate the previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>
>Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>
>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=r
>efs
>/heads/4.2
>commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>
>List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be 
>accessed
>here:
>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f
>=CH
>ANGES;hb=4.2
>
>Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at 
>the same location):
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>
>PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
>Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>
>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)
>

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Srikanteswararao Talluri]

+1 

~Talluri

On 18/12/13 10:57 am, "Sailaja Mada"  wrote:

>+1 
>
>Validated from the specified commit id.
>
>Thanks,
>Sailaja.M
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com]
>Sent: 17 December 2013 19:19
>To: CloudStack Dev
>Subject: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
>
>The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate
>the previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>
>Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>
>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs
>/heads/4.2
>commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>
>List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed
>here:
>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=CH
>ANGES;hb=4.2
>
>Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at
>the same location):
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>
>PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
>Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>
>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)
>

RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Sailaja Mada]

+1 

Validated from the specified commit id. 

Thanks,
Sailaja.M

-Original Message-
From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com] 
Sent: 17 December 2013 19:19
To: CloudStack Dev
Subject: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate the 
previous RC did not get pushed to repo.

Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:

https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.2
commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5

List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed here:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES;hb=4.2

Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at the 
same location):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/

PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS

Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).

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)

Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC

[Wei ZHOU]

+1


2013/12/17 Abhinandan Prateek 

> The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to generate
> the previous RC did not get pushed to repo.
>
> Following are the particulars to vote for this time around:
>
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.2
> commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5
>
> List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed
> here:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES;hb=4.2
>
> Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available at
> the same location):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>
> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST).
>
> 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)
>
>