Re: Copy Volume Failed in CloudStack 4.5 (XenServer 6.5)
If you go to the Global Settings tab in the GUI and search for “wait”, there
are several possible timeouts that may apply.
The backup.snapshot.wait Global Setting seems like the one that probably
applies here (per what Pierre-Luc was noting).
On 2/8/18, 4:15 PM, "Pierre-Luc Dion" wrote:
I think there is a timout global settings you could change so the copy task
will take longer before it timeout and fail in cloudstack. This will not
improve your performance but might reduce failure.
On updating the database content, it could work, but only if the vhd
successfully copy, and mappings remain valid.
I hope this can help...
Le 6 févr. 2018 13 h 28, "anillakieni" a
écrit :
Dear All,
Is somebody available here to assist me on fixing my issue.
Thanks,
Anil.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:00 PM, anillakieni wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm facing issue when copying larger size volumes. i.e., Secondary
> Storage to Primary Storage (I mean attaching DATA volume to VM), after
> certain time around 37670 seconds.
>
> Version of:
> - CloudStack is 4.5.0
> - XenServer 6.5.0
> - MySQL 5.1.73
>
>
> The error and log is provided below, Could someone please assist me here
> which steps i have to take to fix this issue. Also, can we have a chance
to
> update the failed status to success through database tables because i have
> to upload the whole disk again to secondary storage and then later attach
> it to VM, which is consuming more time. My environment has very slow
> network transfers (I have only 1 Gig switch). Please let me know if we can
> tweak the DB to update the status of the disk or do we have any settings
to
> be changed to accept more time (wait time) for updating the status.
> "
>
> 2018-02-06 03:20:42,385 DEBUG [c.c.a.t.Request] (Work-Job-Executor-31:ctx-
c1c78a5a
> job-106186/job-106187 ctx-ea1ef3e6) (logid:c59b2359) Seq
> 38-367887794560851961: Received: { Ans: , MgmtId: 47019105324719, via:
38,
> Ver: v1, Flags: 110, { CopyCmdAnswer } }
> 2018-02-06 03:20:42,389 DEBUG [o.a.c.s.v.VolumeObject]
> (Work-Job-Executor-31:ctx-c1c78a5a job-106186/job-106187 ctx-ea1ef3e6)
> (logid:c59b2359) *Failed to update state*
> *com.cloud.utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException: DB Exception on:
> com.mysql.jdbc.JDBC4PreparedStatement@54bd3a25: SELECT volume_store_ref.id
> , volume_store_ref.store_id,
> volume_store_ref.volume_id, volume_store_ref.zone_id,
> volume_store_ref.created, volume_store_ref.last_updated,
> volume_store_ref.download_pct, volume_store_ref.size,
> volume_store_ref.physical_size, volume_store_ref.download_state,
> volume_store_ref.checksum, volume_store_ref.local_path,
> volume_store_ref.error_str, volume_store_ref.job_id,
> volume_store_ref.install_path, volume_store_ref.url,
> volume_store_ref.download_url, volume_store_ref.download_url_created,
> volume_store_ref.destroyed, volume_store_ref.update_count,
> volume_store_ref.updated, volume_store_ref.state, volume_store_ref.ref_cnt
> FROM volume_store_ref WHERE volume_store_ref.store_id = 1 AND
> volume_store_ref.volume_id = 1178 AND volume_store_ref.destroyed = 0
> ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 1*
> at com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase.searchIncludingRemoved(
> GenericDaoBase.java:425)
> at com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase.searchIncludingRemoved(
> GenericDaoBase.java:361)
> at com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase.findOneIncludingRemovedBy(
> GenericDaoBase.java:889)
> at com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase.findOneBy(
> GenericDaoBase.java:900)
> at org.apache.cloudstack.storage.image.db.VolumeDataStoreDaoImpl.
> findByStoreVolume(VolumeDataStoreDaoImpl.java:209)
> at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor306.invoke(Unknown Source)
> at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:606)
> at org.springframework.aop.support.AopUtils.
> invokeJoinpointUsingReflection(AopUtils.java:317)
> at org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.
> invokeJoinpoint(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:183)
> at org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.
> proceed(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:150)
> at com.cloud.utils.db.TransactionContextInterceptor.invoke(
> TransactionContextInterceptor.java:34)
> at org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.
> proceed(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:161)
> at org.springframework.aop.interceptor.
> ExposeInvocationInterceptor.invoke(ExposeInvocationInterceptor.java:91)
>
Re: Copy Volume Failed in CloudStack 4.5 (XenServer 6.5)
I think there is a timout global settings you could change so the copy task
will take longer before it timeout and fail in cloudstack. This will not
improve your performance but might reduce failure.
On updating the database content, it could work, but only if the vhd
successfully copy, and mappings remain valid.
I hope this can help...
Le 6 févr. 2018 13 h 28, "anillakieni" a
écrit :
Dear All,
Is somebody available here to assist me on fixing my issue.
Thanks,
Anil.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:00 PM, anillakieni wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm facing issue when copying larger size volumes. i.e., Secondary
> Storage to Primary Storage (I mean attaching DATA volume to VM), after
> certain time around 37670 seconds.
>
> Version of:
> - CloudStack is 4.5.0
> - XenServer 6.5.0
> - MySQL 5.1.73
>
>
> The error and log is provided below, Could someone please assist me here
> which steps i have to take to fix this issue. Also, can we have a chance
to
> update the failed status to success through database tables because i have
> to upload the whole disk again to secondary storage and then later attach
> it to VM, which is consuming more time. My environment has very slow
> network transfers (I have only 1 Gig switch). Please let me know if we can
> tweak the DB to update the status of the disk or do we have any settings
to
> be changed to accept more time (wait time) for updating the status.
> "
>
> 2018-02-06 03:20:42,385 DEBUG [c.c.a.t.Request] (Work-Job-Executor-31:ctx-
c1c78a5a
> job-106186/job-106187 ctx-ea1ef3e6) (logid:c59b2359) Seq
> 38-367887794560851961: Received: { Ans: , MgmtId: 47019105324719, via:
38,
> Ver: v1, Flags: 110, { CopyCmdAnswer } }
> 2018-02-06 03:20:42,389 DEBUG [o.a.c.s.v.VolumeObject]
> (Work-Job-Executor-31:ctx-c1c78a5a job-106186/job-106187 ctx-ea1ef3e6)
> (logid:c59b2359) *Failed to update state*
> *com.cloud.utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException: DB Exception on:
> com.mysql.jdbc.JDBC4PreparedStatement@54bd3a25: SELECT volume_store_ref.id
> , volume_store_ref.store_id,
> volume_store_ref.volume_id, volume_store_ref.zone_id,
> volume_store_ref.created, volume_store_ref.last_updated,
> volume_store_ref.download_pct, volume_store_ref.size,
> volume_store_ref.physical_size, volume_store_ref.download_state,
> volume_store_ref.checksum, volume_store_ref.local_path,
> volume_store_ref.error_str, volume_store_ref.job_id,
> volume_store_ref.install_path, volume_store_ref.url,
> volume_store_ref.download_url, volume_store_ref.download_url_created,
> volume_store_ref.destroyed, volume_store_ref.update_count,
> volume_store_ref.updated, volume_store_ref.state, volume_store_ref.ref_cnt
> FROM volume_store_ref WHERE volume_store_ref.store_id = 1 AND
> volume_store_ref.volume_id = 1178 AND volume_store_ref.destroyed = 0
> ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 1*
> at com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase.searchIncludingRemoved(
> GenericDaoBase.java:425)
> at com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase.searchIncludingRemoved(
> GenericDaoBase.java:361)
> at com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase.findOneIncludingRemovedBy(
> GenericDaoBase.java:889)
> at com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase.findOneBy(
> GenericDaoBase.java:900)
> at org.apache.cloudstack.storage.image.db.VolumeDataStoreDaoImpl.
> findByStoreVolume(VolumeDataStoreDaoImpl.java:209)
> at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor306.invoke(Unknown Source)
> at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:606)
> at org.springframework.aop.support.AopUtils.
> invokeJoinpointUsingReflection(AopUtils.java:317)
> at org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.
> invokeJoinpoint(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:183)
> at org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.
> proceed(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:150)
> at com.cloud.utils.db.TransactionContextInterceptor.invoke(
> TransactionContextInterceptor.java:34)
> at org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.
> proceed(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:161)
> at org.springframework.aop.interceptor.
> ExposeInvocationInterceptor.invoke(ExposeInvocationInterceptor.java:91)
> at org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.
> proceed(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:172)
> at org.springframework.aop.framework.JdkDynamicAopProxy.
> invoke(JdkDynamicAopProxy.java:204)
> at com.sun.proxy.$Proxy173.findByStoreVolume(Unknown Source)
> at org.apache.cloudstack.storage.datastore.
> ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.findObject(ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.
> java:353)
> at org.apache.cloudstack.storage.datastore.
> ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.findObject(ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.
> java:338)
> at org.apache.cloudstack.storage.datastore.
> ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.update(ObjectInDataStoreManagerIm
Re: Copy Volume Failed in CloudStack 4.5 (XenServer 6.5)
Dear All,
Is somebody available here to assist me on fixing my issue.
Thanks,
Anil.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:00 PM, anillakieni wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm facing issue when copying larger size volumes. i.e., Secondary
> Storage to Primary Storage (I mean attaching DATA volume to VM), after
> certain time around 37670 seconds.
>
> Version of:
> - CloudStack is 4.5.0
> - XenServer 6.5.0
> - MySQL 5.1.73
>
>
> The error and log is provided below, Could someone please assist me here
> which steps i have to take to fix this issue. Also, can we have a chance to
> update the failed status to success through database tables because i have
> to upload the whole disk again to secondary storage and then later attach
> it to VM, which is consuming more time. My environment has very slow
> network transfers (I have only 1 Gig switch). Please let me know if we can
> tweak the DB to update the status of the disk or do we have any settings to
> be changed to accept more time (wait time) for updating the status.
> "
>
> 2018-02-06 03:20:42,385 DEBUG [c.c.a.t.Request]
> (Work-Job-Executor-31:ctx-c1c78a5a
> job-106186/job-106187 ctx-ea1ef3e6) (logid:c59b2359) Seq
> 38-367887794560851961: Received: { Ans: , MgmtId: 47019105324719, via: 38,
> Ver: v1, Flags: 110, { CopyCmdAnswer } }
> 2018-02-06 03:20:42,389 DEBUG [o.a.c.s.v.VolumeObject]
> (Work-Job-Executor-31:ctx-c1c78a5a job-106186/job-106187 ctx-ea1ef3e6)
> (logid:c59b2359) *Failed to update state*
> *com.cloud.utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException: DB Exception on:
> com.mysql.jdbc.JDBC4PreparedStatement@54bd3a25: SELECT volume_store_ref.id
> , volume_store_ref.store_id,
> volume_store_ref.volume_id, volume_store_ref.zone_id,
> volume_store_ref.created, volume_store_ref.last_updated,
> volume_store_ref.download_pct, volume_store_ref.size,
> volume_store_ref.physical_size, volume_store_ref.download_state,
> volume_store_ref.checksum, volume_store_ref.local_path,
> volume_store_ref.error_str, volume_store_ref.job_id,
> volume_store_ref.install_path, volume_store_ref.url,
> volume_store_ref.download_url, volume_store_ref.download_url_created,
> volume_store_ref.destroyed, volume_store_ref.update_count,
> volume_store_ref.updated, volume_store_ref.state, volume_store_ref.ref_cnt
> FROM volume_store_ref WHERE volume_store_ref.store_id = 1 AND
> volume_store_ref.volume_id = 1178 AND volume_store_ref.destroyed = 0
> ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 1*
> at com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase.searchIncludingRemoved(
> GenericDaoBase.java:425)
> at com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase.searchIncludingRemoved(
> GenericDaoBase.java:361)
> at com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase.findOneIncludingRemovedBy(
> GenericDaoBase.java:889)
> at com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase.findOneBy(
> GenericDaoBase.java:900)
> at org.apache.cloudstack.storage.image.db.VolumeDataStoreDaoImpl.
> findByStoreVolume(VolumeDataStoreDaoImpl.java:209)
> at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor306.invoke(Unknown Source)
> at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:606)
> at org.springframework.aop.support.AopUtils.
> invokeJoinpointUsingReflection(AopUtils.java:317)
> at org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.
> invokeJoinpoint(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:183)
> at org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.
> proceed(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:150)
> at com.cloud.utils.db.TransactionContextInterceptor.invoke(
> TransactionContextInterceptor.java:34)
> at org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.
> proceed(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:161)
> at org.springframework.aop.interceptor.
> ExposeInvocationInterceptor.invoke(ExposeInvocationInterceptor.java:91)
> at org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.
> proceed(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:172)
> at org.springframework.aop.framework.JdkDynamicAopProxy.
> invoke(JdkDynamicAopProxy.java:204)
> at com.sun.proxy.$Proxy173.findByStoreVolume(Unknown Source)
> at org.apache.cloudstack.storage.datastore.
> ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.findObject(ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.
> java:353)
> at org.apache.cloudstack.storage.datastore.
> ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.findObject(ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.
> java:338)
> at org.apache.cloudstack.storage.datastore.
> ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.update(ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.java:289)
> at org.apache.cloudstack.storage.volume.VolumeObject.
> processEvent(VolumeObject.java:294)
> at org.apache.cloudstack.storage.volume.VolumeServiceImpl.
> copyVolumeFromImageToPrimaryCallback(VolumeServiceImpl.java:901)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> NativeMet
Copy Volume Failed in CloudStack 4.5 (XenServer 6.5)
Hi All,
I'm facing issue when copying larger size volumes. i.e., Secondary Storage
to Primary Storage (I mean attaching DATA volume to VM), after certain time
around 37670 seconds.
Version of:
- CloudStack is 4.5.0
- XenServer 6.5.0
- MySQL 5.1.73
The error and log is provided below, Could someone please assist me here
which steps i have to take to fix this issue. Also, can we have a chance to
update the failed status to success through database tables because i have
to upload the whole disk again to secondary storage and then later attach
it to VM, which is consuming more time. My environment has very slow
network transfers (I have only 1 Gig switch). Please let me know if we can
tweak the DB to update the status of the disk or do we have any settings to
be changed to accept more time (wait time) for updating the status.
"
2018-02-06 03:20:42,385 DEBUG [c.c.a.t.Request]
(Work-Job-Executor-31:ctx-c1c78a5a job-106186/job-106187 ctx-ea1ef3e6)
(logid:c59b2359) Seq 38-367887794560851961: Received: { Ans: , MgmtId:
47019105324719, via: 38, Ver: v1, Flags: 110, { CopyCmdAnswer } }
2018-02-06 03:20:42,389 DEBUG [o.a.c.s.v.VolumeObject]
(Work-Job-Executor-31:ctx-c1c78a5a job-106186/job-106187 ctx-ea1ef3e6)
(logid:c59b2359) *Failed to update state*
*com.cloud.utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException: DB Exception on:
com.mysql.jdbc.JDBC4PreparedStatement@54bd3a25: SELECT volume_store_ref.id
, volume_store_ref.store_id,
volume_store_ref.volume_id, volume_store_ref.zone_id,
volume_store_ref.created, volume_store_ref.last_updated,
volume_store_ref.download_pct, volume_store_ref.size,
volume_store_ref.physical_size, volume_store_ref.download_state,
volume_store_ref.checksum, volume_store_ref.local_path,
volume_store_ref.error_str, volume_store_ref.job_id,
volume_store_ref.install_path, volume_store_ref.url,
volume_store_ref.download_url, volume_store_ref.download_url_created,
volume_store_ref.destroyed, volume_store_ref.update_count,
volume_store_ref.updated, volume_store_ref.state, volume_store_ref.ref_cnt
FROM volume_store_ref WHERE volume_store_ref.store_id = 1 AND
volume_store_ref.volume_id = 1178 AND volume_store_ref.destroyed = 0
ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 1*
at
com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase.searchIncludingRemoved(GenericDaoBase.java:425)
at
com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase.searchIncludingRemoved(GenericDaoBase.java:361)
at
com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase.findOneIncludingRemovedBy(GenericDaoBase.java:889)
at
com.cloud.utils.db.GenericDaoBase.findOneBy(GenericDaoBase.java:900)
at
org.apache.cloudstack.storage.image.db.VolumeDataStoreDaoImpl.findByStoreVolume(VolumeDataStoreDaoImpl.java:209)
at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor306.invoke(Unknown Source)
at
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:606)
at
org.springframework.aop.support.AopUtils.invokeJoinpointUsingReflection(AopUtils.java:317)
at
org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.invokeJoinpoint(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:183)
at
org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.proceed(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:150)
at
com.cloud.utils.db.TransactionContextInterceptor.invoke(TransactionContextInterceptor.java:34)
at
org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.proceed(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:161)
at
org.springframework.aop.interceptor.ExposeInvocationInterceptor.invoke(ExposeInvocationInterceptor.java:91)
at
org.springframework.aop.framework.ReflectiveMethodInvocation.proceed(ReflectiveMethodInvocation.java:172)
at
org.springframework.aop.framework.JdkDynamicAopProxy.invoke(JdkDynamicAopProxy.java:204)
at com.sun.proxy.$Proxy173.findByStoreVolume(Unknown Source)
at
org.apache.cloudstack.storage.datastore.ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.findObject(ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.java:353)
at
org.apache.cloudstack.storage.datastore.ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.findObject(ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.java:338)
at
org.apache.cloudstack.storage.datastore.ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.update(ObjectInDataStoreManagerImpl.java:289)
at
org.apache.cloudstack.storage.volume.VolumeObject.processEvent(VolumeObject.java:294)
at
org.apache.cloudstack.storage.volume.VolumeServiceImpl.copyVolumeFromImageToPrimaryCallback(VolumeServiceImpl.java:901)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57)
at
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:606)
at
org.apache.cloudstack.framework.async.AsyncCallbackDispatcher.dispatch(AsyncCallbackDispatcher.java:148)
at
org.apache.cloudstack.framework.a
Re: Xenserver 6.5 live migration with local volumes
Hi Remi, For me it’s (migration across clusters with storage) working fine but am on internal branch. There could be some regressions due to recent refactors. As far as this patch goes this handles with cluster case. PR https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/925 is no more valid after fixing of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9231. This patch handles the broken scenario. Regards, Anshul On 24/06/16, 7:31 PM, "Remi Bergsma" wrote: Hi Anshul, Thanks! Did you ever try live migrating from CloudStack with storage between clusters? I can't get that to work. I'll collect some details in the next days but was wondering if it was supposed to work. Regards, Remi Sent from my iPhone > On 24 Jun 2016, at 06:30, Anshul Gangwar > wrote: > > Created the PR https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1596. > > Regards, > Anshul > > On 24/06/16, 2:33 AM, "Dave Garbus" wrote: > > Is there anybody that wants to take this on? > > Thanks, > > - Dave > >> On May 24, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Dave Garbus wrote: >> >> I updated the issue referenced in this email >> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9353) to include >> CloudStack 4.8 as an affected version. If we could at least get someone >> assigned to it, that’d be a good start. >> >> Thanks, >> >> - Dave >> >> On May 24, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Ivan Derbenev >> mailto:ivan.derbe...@tech-corps.com>> wrote: >> >> Is there a way I can fix this on my installation, without recompiling jar >> files? >> >> Regards, >> IT engineer >> Farheap, Russia >> Ivan Derbenev >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik@accelerite.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:06 PM >> To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:us...@cloudstack.apache.org> >> Subject: Re: Xenserver 6.5 live migration with local volumes >> >> This is a product bug and needs to be fixed. There is some serialization >> issue that needs fixing. >> >> In the below code volumeToFiler is null as Map is not a serializable type. >> It needs to be replaced with getVolumeToFilerAsList() and then the data >> needs to be read appropriately. >> >> final Map volumeToFiler = >> command.getVolumeToFiler(); >> >> -Koushik >> >> On 24/05/16, 3:23 PM, "Ivan Derbenev" >> mailto:ivan.derbe...@tech-corps.com>> wrote: >> >> Hello! >> After the migration onto XS 6.5 (and installing all the updates) and CS >> 4.8 I can't migrate VMs with Local Storage >> >> The issue is similar to this: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9353, but it doesn't have >> any solutions Any ideas? >> >> Errors: >> >> 2016-05-24 12:10:16,440 DEBUG [c.c.v.VirtualMachinePowerStateSyncImpl] >> (DirectAgentCronJob-26:ctx-ab4250ff) (logid:4fa92c13) Done with process >> of VM state report. host: 136592 >> 2016-05-24 12:10:16,450 DEBUG [c.c.h.x.r.CitrixResourceBase] >> (DirectAgent-132:ctx-a97d60fa) (logid:8748bffe) Looking for network >> named cloud-main >> 2016-05-24 12:10:16,466 DEBUG [c.c.h.x.r.XsLocalNetwork] >> (DirectAgent-132:ctx-a97d60fa) (logid:8748bffe) Found a network called >> cloud-main on host=10.7.130.103; >> Network=9632020b-4d98-1bed-9ae8-477e0993cab0; >> pif=3c7d1121-2bde-26cf-9478-18e51ffca75f >> 2016-05-24 12:10:16,477 DEBUG [c.c.h.x.r.CitrixResourceBase] >> (DirectAgent-132:ctx-a97d60fa) (logid:8748bffe) Creating VLAN 1007 on >> host 10.7.130.103 on device eth0 >> 2016-05-24 12:10:17,163 DEBUG [c.c.h.x.r.CitrixResourceBase] >> (DirectAgent-132:ctx-a97d60fa) (logid:8748bffe) VLAN is created for >> 1007. The uuid is ec053fee-0426-9665-150a-77399562196b >> 2016-05-24 12:10:17,170 WARN >> [c.c.h.x.r.w.x.XenServer610MigrateWithStorageCommandWrapper] >> (DirectAgent-132:ctx-a97d60fa) (logid:8748bffe) Catch Exception >> java.lang.NullPointerException. Storage motion failed due to >> java.lang.NullPointerException java.lang.NullPointerException >> at >> com.cloud.hypervisor.xenserver.resource.wrapper.xen610.XenServer610MigrateWithStorageCommandWrapper.execute(XenServer610MigrateWithStorageCommandWrapper.java:86) >> at >> com.cloud.hypervisor.xenserver.resource.wrapper.xen610.XenServer610MigrateWithStorageCommandWrapper.execute(XenServer610MigrateWithStorageCommandWrapper.java:54) >> at >> com.cloud.hypervisor.xenserver.resource.wrapper.xenbase.CitrixRequestWrapper.execute(CitrixRequestWrap
Re: Xenserver 6.5 live migration with local volumes
FYI testing this patch as it seems related to the issue I observe: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/925 Regards, Remi Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Jun 2016, at 17:41, Remi Bergsma wrote: > > This is about xenserver 6.5. > > Regards, Remi > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 26 Jun 2016, at 14:14, Will Stevens wrote: >> >> Which hypervisor are you using? >>> On Jun 26, 2016 2:00 AM, "Remi Bergsma" wrote: >>> >>> Hi Makrand, >>> >>> Thanks for the info. What I want is migrate a VM from one cluster (with >>> cluster scope shared storage) to another one. The UI / API allows that (it >>> says: storage migration required) but it doesn't work. The goal is to >>> consolidate two half empty clusters into one and then reprovison the empty >>> one. >>> >>> I was wondering whether others know this feature even works in which case >>> my issue might be a local config issue or so. >>> >>> I'll try to reproduce in a test setup so that I can hook in the debugger >>> and see what's going on. >>> >>> If there are tips please let me know :-) >>> >>> Thanks, Remi >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 25 Jun 2016, at 17:41, Makrand wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Remi, >>>> >>>> If you're talking about common storage for all clusters, then its Zone >>> wide >>>> primary storage. I think it works pretty well, only if the new created VM >>>> have disks already created on same new storage. >>>> >>>> With my previous employer, we rolled out zonewide primary (with cluster >>>> level primary setup already in place) and it worked pretty good once we >>>> vmotioned VMs from *cluster primary* to *Zone wide primary* and updated >>> DB >>>> (storage & volumes tables). (We eventually ditched Cluster primary). >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best, >>>> Makrand >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Remi Bergsma < >>> rberg...@schubergphilis.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Anshul, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! Did you ever try live migrating from CloudStack with storage >>>>> between clusters? I can't get that to work. I'll collect some details in >>>>> the next days but was wondering if it was supposed to work. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, Remi >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2016, at 06:30, Anshul Gangwar < >>> anshul.gang...@accelerite.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Created the PR https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1596. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Anshul >>>>>> >>>>>> On 24/06/16, 2:33 AM, "Dave Garbus" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there anybody that wants to take this on? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> - Dave >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 24, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Dave Garbus >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I updated the issue referenced in this email ( >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9353) to include >>>>> CloudStack 4.8 as an affected version. If we could at least get someone >>>>> assigned to it, that’d be a good start. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Dave >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 24, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Ivan Derbenev < >>>>> ivan.derbe...@tech-corps.com<mailto:ivan.derbe...@tech-corps.com>> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is there a way I can fix this on my installation, without recompiling >>>>> jar files? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> IT engineer >>>>>>> Farheap, Russia >>>>>>> Ivan Derbenev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Original Message- >>>>>>> From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik@accelerite.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May
Re: Xenserver 6.5 live migration with local volumes
This is about xenserver 6.5. Regards, Remi Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Jun 2016, at 14:14, Will Stevens wrote: > > Which hypervisor are you using? >> On Jun 26, 2016 2:00 AM, "Remi Bergsma" wrote: >> >> Hi Makrand, >> >> Thanks for the info. What I want is migrate a VM from one cluster (with >> cluster scope shared storage) to another one. The UI / API allows that (it >> says: storage migration required) but it doesn't work. The goal is to >> consolidate two half empty clusters into one and then reprovison the empty >> one. >> >> I was wondering whether others know this feature even works in which case >> my issue might be a local config issue or so. >> >> I'll try to reproduce in a test setup so that I can hook in the debugger >> and see what's going on. >> >> If there are tips please let me know :-) >> >> Thanks, Remi >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 25 Jun 2016, at 17:41, Makrand wrote: >>> >>> Hi Remi, >>> >>> If you're talking about common storage for all clusters, then its Zone >> wide >>> primary storage. I think it works pretty well, only if the new created VM >>> have disks already created on same new storage. >>> >>> With my previous employer, we rolled out zonewide primary (with cluster >>> level primary setup already in place) and it worked pretty good once we >>> vmotioned VMs from *cluster primary* to *Zone wide primary* and updated >> DB >>> (storage & volumes tables). (We eventually ditched Cluster primary). >>> >>> -- >>> Best, >>> Makrand >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Remi Bergsma < >> rberg...@schubergphilis.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Anshul, >>>> >>>> Thanks! Did you ever try live migrating from CloudStack with storage >>>> between clusters? I can't get that to work. I'll collect some details in >>>> the next days but was wondering if it was supposed to work. >>>> >>>> Regards, Remi >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On 24 Jun 2016, at 06:30, Anshul Gangwar < >> anshul.gang...@accelerite.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Created the PR https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1596. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Anshul >>>>> >>>>> On 24/06/16, 2:33 AM, "Dave Garbus" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Is there anybody that wants to take this on? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> - Dave >>>>> >>>>>> On May 24, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Dave Garbus >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I updated the issue referenced in this email ( >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9353) to include >>>> CloudStack 4.8 as an affected version. If we could at least get someone >>>> assigned to it, that’d be a good start. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> - Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 24, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Ivan Derbenev < >>>> ivan.derbe...@tech-corps.com<mailto:ivan.derbe...@tech-corps.com>> >> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there a way I can fix this on my installation, without recompiling >>>> jar files? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> IT engineer >>>>>> Farheap, Russia >>>>>> Ivan Derbenev >>>>>> >>>>>> -Original Message- >>>>>> From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik@accelerite.com] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:06 PM >>>>>> To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:us...@cloudstack.apache.org> >>>>>> Subject: Re: Xenserver 6.5 live migration with local volumes >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a product bug and needs to be fixed. There is some >>>> serialization issue that needs fixing. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the below code volumeToFiler is null as Map is not a serializable >>>> type. It needs to be replaced with getVolumeToFilerAsList() and then the >>>> data needs to be read appropriately. >>>>>&
Re: Xenserver 6.5 live migration with local volumes
Which hypervisor are you using? On Jun 26, 2016 2:00 AM, "Remi Bergsma" wrote: > Hi Makrand, > > Thanks for the info. What I want is migrate a VM from one cluster (with > cluster scope shared storage) to another one. The UI / API allows that (it > says: storage migration required) but it doesn't work. The goal is to > consolidate two half empty clusters into one and then reprovison the empty > one. > > I was wondering whether others know this feature even works in which case > my issue might be a local config issue or so. > > I'll try to reproduce in a test setup so that I can hook in the debugger > and see what's going on. > > If there are tips please let me know :-) > > Thanks, Remi > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 25 Jun 2016, at 17:41, Makrand wrote: > > > > Hi Remi, > > > > If you're talking about common storage for all clusters, then its Zone > wide > > primary storage. I think it works pretty well, only if the new created VM > > have disks already created on same new storage. > > > > With my previous employer, we rolled out zonewide primary (with cluster > > level primary setup already in place) and it worked pretty good once we > > vmotioned VMs from *cluster primary* to *Zone wide primary* and updated > DB > > (storage & volumes tables). (We eventually ditched Cluster primary). > > > > -- > > Best, > > Makrand > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Remi Bergsma < > rberg...@schubergphilis.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Anshul, > >> > >> Thanks! Did you ever try live migrating from CloudStack with storage > >> between clusters? I can't get that to work. I'll collect some details in > >> the next days but was wondering if it was supposed to work. > >> > >> Regards, Remi > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >>>> On 24 Jun 2016, at 06:30, Anshul Gangwar < > anshul.gang...@accelerite.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Created the PR https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1596. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Anshul > >>> > >>> On 24/06/16, 2:33 AM, "Dave Garbus" wrote: > >>> > >>> Is there anybody that wants to take this on? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> - Dave > >>> > >>>> On May 24, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Dave Garbus > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I updated the issue referenced in this email ( > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9353) to include > >> CloudStack 4.8 as an affected version. If we could at least get someone > >> assigned to it, that’d be a good start. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> - Dave > >>>> > >>>> On May 24, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Ivan Derbenev < > >> ivan.derbe...@tech-corps.com<mailto:ivan.derbe...@tech-corps.com>> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Is there a way I can fix this on my installation, without recompiling > >> jar files? > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> IT engineer > >>>> Farheap, Russia > >>>> Ivan Derbenev > >>>> > >>>> -Original Message- > >>>> From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik@accelerite.com] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:06 PM > >>>> To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:us...@cloudstack.apache.org> > >>>> Subject: Re: Xenserver 6.5 live migration with local volumes > >>>> > >>>> This is a product bug and needs to be fixed. There is some > >> serialization issue that needs fixing. > >>>> > >>>> In the below code volumeToFiler is null as Map is not a serializable > >> type. It needs to be replaced with getVolumeToFilerAsList() and then the > >> data needs to be read appropriately. > >>>> > >>>> final Map volumeToFiler = > >> command.getVolumeToFiler(); > >>>> > >>>> -Koushik > >>>> > >>>> On 24/05/16, 3:23 PM, "Ivan Derbenev" >> <mailto:ivan.derbe...@tech-corps.com>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hello! > >>>> After the migration onto XS 6.5 (and installing all the updates) and > CS > >>>> 4.8 I can't migrate VMs with Local Storage > &
Re: Xenserver 6.5 live migration with local volumes
Hi Makrand, Thanks for the info. What I want is migrate a VM from one cluster (with cluster scope shared storage) to another one. The UI / API allows that (it says: storage migration required) but it doesn't work. The goal is to consolidate two half empty clusters into one and then reprovison the empty one. I was wondering whether others know this feature even works in which case my issue might be a local config issue or so. I'll try to reproduce in a test setup so that I can hook in the debugger and see what's going on. If there are tips please let me know :-) Thanks, Remi Sent from my iPhone > On 25 Jun 2016, at 17:41, Makrand wrote: > > Hi Remi, > > If you're talking about common storage for all clusters, then its Zone wide > primary storage. I think it works pretty well, only if the new created VM > have disks already created on same new storage. > > With my previous employer, we rolled out zonewide primary (with cluster > level primary setup already in place) and it worked pretty good once we > vmotioned VMs from *cluster primary* to *Zone wide primary* and updated DB > (storage & volumes tables). (We eventually ditched Cluster primary). > > -- > Best, > Makrand > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Remi Bergsma > wrote: > >> Hi Anshul, >> >> Thanks! Did you ever try live migrating from CloudStack with storage >> between clusters? I can't get that to work. I'll collect some details in >> the next days but was wondering if it was supposed to work. >> >> Regards, Remi >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On 24 Jun 2016, at 06:30, Anshul Gangwar >>> wrote: >>> >>> Created the PR https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1596. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Anshul >>> >>> On 24/06/16, 2:33 AM, "Dave Garbus" wrote: >>> >>> Is there anybody that wants to take this on? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> - Dave >>> >>>> On May 24, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Dave Garbus >> wrote: >>>> >>>> I updated the issue referenced in this email ( >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9353) to include >> CloudStack 4.8 as an affected version. If we could at least get someone >> assigned to it, that’d be a good start. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> - Dave >>>> >>>> On May 24, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Ivan Derbenev < >> ivan.derbe...@tech-corps.com<mailto:ivan.derbe...@tech-corps.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Is there a way I can fix this on my installation, without recompiling >> jar files? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> IT engineer >>>> Farheap, Russia >>>> Ivan Derbenev >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik@accelerite.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:06 PM >>>> To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:us...@cloudstack.apache.org> >>>> Subject: Re: Xenserver 6.5 live migration with local volumes >>>> >>>> This is a product bug and needs to be fixed. There is some >> serialization issue that needs fixing. >>>> >>>> In the below code volumeToFiler is null as Map is not a serializable >> type. It needs to be replaced with getVolumeToFilerAsList() and then the >> data needs to be read appropriately. >>>> >>>> final Map volumeToFiler = >> command.getVolumeToFiler(); >>>> >>>> -Koushik >>>> >>>> On 24/05/16, 3:23 PM, "Ivan Derbenev" > <mailto:ivan.derbe...@tech-corps.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello! >>>> After the migration onto XS 6.5 (and installing all the updates) and CS >>>> 4.8 I can't migrate VMs with Local Storage >>>> >>>> The issue is similar to this: >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9353, but it doesn't >> have any solutions Any ideas? >>>> >>>> Errors: >>>> >>>> 2016-05-24 12:10:16,440 DEBUG [c.c.v.VirtualMachinePowerStateSyncImpl] >>>> (DirectAgentCronJob-26:ctx-ab4250ff) (logid:4fa92c13) Done with process >>>> of VM state report. host: 136592 >>>> 2016-05-24 12:10:16,450 DEBUG [c.c.h.x.r.CitrixResourceBase] >>>> (DirectAgent-132:ctx-a97d60fa) (logid:8748bffe) Looking for network >>>> named cloud-main >>&g
Re: Xenserver 6.5 live migration with local volumes
Hi Anshul, Thanks! Did you ever try live migrating from CloudStack with storage between clusters? I can't get that to work. I'll collect some details in the next days but was wondering if it was supposed to work. Regards, Remi Sent from my iPhone > On 24 Jun 2016, at 06:30, Anshul Gangwar > wrote: > > Created the PR https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1596. > > Regards, > Anshul > > On 24/06/16, 2:33 AM, "Dave Garbus" wrote: > > Is there anybody that wants to take this on? > > Thanks, > > - Dave > >> On May 24, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Dave Garbus wrote: >> >> I updated the issue referenced in this email >> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9353) to include >> CloudStack 4.8 as an affected version. If we could at least get someone >> assigned to it, that’d be a good start. >> >> Thanks, >> >> - Dave >> >> On May 24, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Ivan Derbenev >> mailto:ivan.derbe...@tech-corps.com>> wrote: >> >> Is there a way I can fix this on my installation, without recompiling jar >> files? >> >> Regards, >> IT engineer >> Farheap, Russia >> Ivan Derbenev >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik@accelerite.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:06 PM >> To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:us...@cloudstack.apache.org> >> Subject: Re: Xenserver 6.5 live migration with local volumes >> >> This is a product bug and needs to be fixed. There is some serialization >> issue that needs fixing. >> >> In the below code volumeToFiler is null as Map is not a serializable type. >> It needs to be replaced with getVolumeToFilerAsList() and then the data >> needs to be read appropriately. >> >> final Map volumeToFiler = >> command.getVolumeToFiler(); >> >> -Koushik >> >> On 24/05/16, 3:23 PM, "Ivan Derbenev" >> mailto:ivan.derbe...@tech-corps.com>> wrote: >> >> Hello! >> After the migration onto XS 6.5 (and installing all the updates) and CS >> 4.8 I can't migrate VMs with Local Storage >> >> The issue is similar to this: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9353, but it doesn't have >> any solutions Any ideas? >> >> Errors: >> >> 2016-05-24 12:10:16,440 DEBUG [c.c.v.VirtualMachinePowerStateSyncImpl] >> (DirectAgentCronJob-26:ctx-ab4250ff) (logid:4fa92c13) Done with process >> of VM state report. host: 136592 >> 2016-05-24 12:10:16,450 DEBUG [c.c.h.x.r.CitrixResourceBase] >> (DirectAgent-132:ctx-a97d60fa) (logid:8748bffe) Looking for network >> named cloud-main >> 2016-05-24 12:10:16,466 DEBUG [c.c.h.x.r.XsLocalNetwork] >> (DirectAgent-132:ctx-a97d60fa) (logid:8748bffe) Found a network called >> cloud-main on host=10.7.130.103; >> Network=9632020b-4d98-1bed-9ae8-477e0993cab0; >> pif=3c7d1121-2bde-26cf-9478-18e51ffca75f >> 2016-05-24 12:10:16,477 DEBUG [c.c.h.x.r.CitrixResourceBase] >> (DirectAgent-132:ctx-a97d60fa) (logid:8748bffe) Creating VLAN 1007 on >> host 10.7.130.103 on device eth0 >> 2016-05-24 12:10:17,163 DEBUG [c.c.h.x.r.CitrixResourceBase] >> (DirectAgent-132:ctx-a97d60fa) (logid:8748bffe) VLAN is created for >> 1007. The uuid is ec053fee-0426-9665-150a-77399562196b >> 2016-05-24 12:10:17,170 WARN >> [c.c.h.x.r.w.x.XenServer610MigrateWithStorageCommandWrapper] >> (DirectAgent-132:ctx-a97d60fa) (logid:8748bffe) Catch Exception >> java.lang.NullPointerException. Storage motion failed due to >> java.lang.NullPointerException java.lang.NullPointerException >> at >> com.cloud.hypervisor.xenserver.resource.wrapper.xen610.XenServer610MigrateWithStorageCommandWrapper.execute(XenServer610MigrateWithStorageCommandWrapper.java:86) >> at >> com.cloud.hypervisor.xenserver.resource.wrapper.xen610.XenServer610MigrateWithStorageCommandWrapper.execute(XenServer610MigrateWithStorageCommandWrapper.java:54) >> at >> com.cloud.hypervisor.xenserver.resource.wrapper.xenbase.CitrixRequestWrapper.execute(CitrixRequestWrapper.java:122) >> at >> com.cloud.hypervisor.xenserver.resource.CitrixResourceBase.executeRequest(CitrixResourceBase.java:1677) >> at >> com.cloud.agent.manager.DirectAgentAttache$Task.runInContext(DirectAgentAttache.java:315) >> at >> org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.ManagedContextRunnable$1.run(ManagedContextRunnable.java:49) >> at >> org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.impl.DefaultManagedContext$1.call(
Re: Xenserver 6.5 live migration with local volumes
Created the PR https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1596. Regards, Anshul On 24/06/16, 2:33 AM, "Dave Garbus" wrote: Is there anybody that wants to take this on? Thanks, - Dave > On May 24, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Dave Garbus wrote: > > I updated the issue referenced in this email > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9353) to include CloudStack > 4.8 as an affected version. If we could at least get someone assigned to it, > that’d be a good start. > > Thanks, > > - Dave > > On May 24, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Ivan Derbenev > mailto:ivan.derbe...@tech-corps.com>> wrote: > > Is there a way I can fix this on my installation, without recompiling jar > files? > > Regards, > IT engineer > Farheap, Russia > Ivan Derbenev > > -Original Message- > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik@accelerite.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:06 PM > To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:us...@cloudstack.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Xenserver 6.5 live migration with local volumes > > This is a product bug and needs to be fixed. There is some serialization > issue that needs fixing. > > In the below code volumeToFiler is null as Map is not a serializable type. It > needs to be replaced with getVolumeToFilerAsList() and then the data needs to > be read appropriately. > > final Map volumeToFiler = > command.getVolumeToFiler(); > > -Koushik > > On 24/05/16, 3:23 PM, "Ivan Derbenev" > mailto:ivan.derbe...@tech-corps.com>> wrote: > > Hello! > After the migration onto XS 6.5 (and installing all the updates) and CS > 4.8 I can't migrate VMs with Local Storage > > The issue is similar to this: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9353, but it doesn't have > any solutions Any ideas? > > Errors: > > 2016-05-24 12:10:16,440 DEBUG [c.c.v.VirtualMachinePowerStateSyncImpl] > (DirectAgentCronJob-26:ctx-ab4250ff) (logid:4fa92c13) Done with process > of VM state report. host: 136592 > 2016-05-24 12:10:16,450 DEBUG [c.c.h.x.r.CitrixResourceBase] > (DirectAgent-132:ctx-a97d60fa) (logid:8748bffe) Looking for network > named cloud-main > 2016-05-24 12:10:16,466 DEBUG [c.c.h.x.r.XsLocalNetwork] > (DirectAgent-132:ctx-a97d60fa) (logid:8748bffe) Found a network called > cloud-main on host=10.7.130.103; > Network=9632020b-4d98-1bed-9ae8-477e0993cab0; > pif=3c7d1121-2bde-26cf-9478-18e51ffca75f > 2016-05-24 12:10:16,477 DEBUG [c.c.h.x.r.CitrixResourceBase] > (DirectAgent-132:ctx-a97d60fa) (logid:8748bffe) Creating VLAN 1007 on > host 10.7.130.103 on device eth0 > 2016-05-24 12:10:17,163 DEBUG [c.c.h.x.r.CitrixResourceBase] > (DirectAgent-132:ctx-a97d60fa) (logid:8748bffe) VLAN is created for > 1007. The uuid is ec053fee-0426-9665-150a-77399562196b > 2016-05-24 12:10:17,170 WARN > [c.c.h.x.r.w.x.XenServer610MigrateWithStorageCommandWrapper] > (DirectAgent-132:ctx-a97d60fa) (logid:8748bffe) Catch Exception > java.lang.NullPointerException. Storage motion failed due to > java.lang.NullPointerException java.lang.NullPointerException > at > com.cloud.hypervisor.xenserver.resource.wrapper.xen610.XenServer610MigrateWithStorageCommandWrapper.execute(XenServer610MigrateWithStorageCommandWrapper.java:86) > at > com.cloud.hypervisor.xenserver.resource.wrapper.xen610.XenServer610MigrateWithStorageCommandWrapper.execute(XenServer610MigrateWithStorageCommandWrapper.java:54) > at > com.cloud.hypervisor.xenserver.resource.wrapper.xenbase.CitrixRequestWrapper.execute(CitrixRequestWrapper.java:122) > at > com.cloud.hypervisor.xenserver.resource.CitrixResourceBase.executeRequest(CitrixResourceBase.java:1677) > at > com.cloud.agent.manager.DirectAgentAttache$Task.runInContext(DirectAgentAttache.java:315) > at > org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.ManagedContextRunnable$1.run(ManagedContextRunnable.java:49) > at > org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.impl.DefaultManagedContext$1.call(DefaultManagedContext.java:56) > at > org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.impl.DefaultManagedContext.callWithContext(DefaultManagedContext.java:103) > at > org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.impl.DefaultManagedContext.runWithContext(DefaultManagedContext.java:53) > at > org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.ManagedContextRunnable.run(ManagedContextRunnable.java:46) > at > java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.call(Executors.java:471) > at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:262) > at > java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.access$201(ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.java:178) > at > java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$S
CS 4.5.2 Error while adding First Xenserver 6.5 with bond
Hi All Today I installed CS 4.5.2 along with Xenserver 6.5 with all upto date hotfix and xenserver configured with bonding. During the Advance Networking while add the first host xenserver I could see error as something went wrong fix it While checking the log file I could see error as pasted below. om.cloud.utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException: Cannot transit agent status with event AgentDisconnected for host 1, mangement Detail logs are uploaded in dropbox https://www.dropbox.com/sh/03cgrx969sub5n5/AAAf3tw2CzViyMDUs4LXyxfYa?dl=0 Thanks, Keerthi
Re: XenServer 6.5
Yes, this issue is fixed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8178 Please, close the other as duplicate. > On 28-Jan-2015, at 8:28 pm, Daan Hoogland wrote: > > this waas fixed Tomasz, Not sure if it made the last release > candidate but I suppose it did. > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Tomasz Zięba wrote: >> small issue: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8175 >> >> but in general it works fine >> >> 2015-01-28 14:16 GMT+01:00 Daan Hoogland : >> >>> with 4.5 you should be fine >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Matthew Midgett >>> wrote: >>>> And where exactly do we stand with this right now? Can I install with >>> ACS 4.5? >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:17 AM >>>> To: dev >>>> Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5 >>>> >>>> Adrian, I think your questions/considerations are right and I have been >>> wondering about the same things. >>>> On one side it should be "allowed unless" instead of "only allowed if". >>> On the other hand therre are sure to be some features extra or some that >>> might have a slightly different semantics that might hinder or impair >>> cloudstack. >>>> Not sure what the right answer is. Hope that someone with a view on the >>> architectural decisions behind it can shed some light. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Adrian Lewis < >>> adr...@alsiconsulting.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> With XS 6.5 released, is anyone able to comment on: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Does the 4.5 branch need updating to support it? >>>>> 2. If the changes are so minor, will we see support in 4.3.x or 4.4.x >>>>> as well? >>>>> >>>>> Do we consider this to be a feature or bug? If the code for the >>>>> resource class stays exactly the same and the only thing blocking the >>>>> use of XS 6.5 is the checks that CS does when adding a new host, would >>>>> this not be considered as a bug? Technically the validation is broken >>>>> as its intent is to determine whether or not the current resource >>>>> class can handle the hypervisor. If the current resource class can in >>>>> fact handle XS6.5 but the validation code says it can't, isn’t this is >>> a bug? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Adrian >>>>> >>>>> -Original Message- >>>>> From: Tim Mackey [mailto:tmac...@gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: 20 October 2014 20:10 >>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>> Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5 >>>>> >>>>> Correct on both counts >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Daan Hoogland >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> thanks Tim, from this I take that hypervisor versions are hardcoded >>>>>> still, and xenserver 6.5 is supported since 4.5. correct? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Tim Mackey wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Daan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here are the relevant commits: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2 >>>>>> b >>>>>> e02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b >>>>>> 7 >>>>>> f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=6 >>>>>> 7 >>>>>> 4af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mike, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here's an example of the type of DB changes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f >>>>>> = >>>>>> setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132f
Re: XenServer 6.5
this waas fixed Tomasz, Not sure if it made the last release candidate but I suppose it did. On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Tomasz Zięba wrote: > small issue: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8175 > > but in general it works fine > > 2015-01-28 14:16 GMT+01:00 Daan Hoogland : > >> with 4.5 you should be fine >> >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Matthew Midgett >> wrote: >> > And where exactly do we stand with this right now? Can I install with >> ACS 4.5? >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:17 AM >> > To: dev >> > Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5 >> > >> > Adrian, I think your questions/considerations are right and I have been >> wondering about the same things. >> > On one side it should be "allowed unless" instead of "only allowed if". >> On the other hand therre are sure to be some features extra or some that >> might have a slightly different semantics that might hinder or impair >> cloudstack. >> > Not sure what the right answer is. Hope that someone with a view on the >> architectural decisions behind it can shed some light. >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Adrian Lewis < >> adr...@alsiconsulting.co.uk> wrote: >> >> With XS 6.5 released, is anyone able to comment on: >> >> >> >> 1. Does the 4.5 branch need updating to support it? >> >> 2. If the changes are so minor, will we see support in 4.3.x or 4.4.x >> >> as well? >> >> >> >> Do we consider this to be a feature or bug? If the code for the >> >> resource class stays exactly the same and the only thing blocking the >> >> use of XS 6.5 is the checks that CS does when adding a new host, would >> >> this not be considered as a bug? Technically the validation is broken >> >> as its intent is to determine whether or not the current resource >> >> class can handle the hypervisor. If the current resource class can in >> >> fact handle XS6.5 but the validation code says it can't, isn’t this is >> a bug? >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Adrian >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> >> From: Tim Mackey [mailto:tmac...@gmail.com] >> >> Sent: 20 October 2014 20:10 >> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> >> Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5 >> >> >> >> Correct on both counts >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Daan Hoogland >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> thanks Tim, from this I take that hypervisor versions are hardcoded >> >>> still, and xenserver 6.5 is supported since 4.5. correct? >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Tim Mackey wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > Daan, >> >>> > >> >>> > Here are the relevant commits: >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2 >> >>> b >> >>> e02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723 >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b >> >>> 7 >> >>> f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72 >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=6 >> >>> 7 >> >>> 4af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59 >> >>> > >> >>> > Mike, >> >>> > >> >>> > Here's an example of the type of DB changes: >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f >> >>> = >> >>> setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4 >> >>> c >> >>> ddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089 >> >>> b >> >>> 6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=f212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268 >> >>> > >> >>> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Tutkowski < >> >>> > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > > Yeah, Tim,
Re: XenServer 6.5
small issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8175 but in general it works fine 2015-01-28 14:16 GMT+01:00 Daan Hoogland : > with 4.5 you should be fine > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Matthew Midgett > wrote: > > And where exactly do we stand with this right now? Can I install with > ACS 4.5? > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:17 AM > > To: dev > > Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5 > > > > Adrian, I think your questions/considerations are right and I have been > wondering about the same things. > > On one side it should be "allowed unless" instead of "only allowed if". > On the other hand therre are sure to be some features extra or some that > might have a slightly different semantics that might hinder or impair > cloudstack. > > Not sure what the right answer is. Hope that someone with a view on the > architectural decisions behind it can shed some light. > > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Adrian Lewis < > adr...@alsiconsulting.co.uk> wrote: > >> With XS 6.5 released, is anyone able to comment on: > >> > >> 1. Does the 4.5 branch need updating to support it? > >> 2. If the changes are so minor, will we see support in 4.3.x or 4.4.x > >> as well? > >> > >> Do we consider this to be a feature or bug? If the code for the > >> resource class stays exactly the same and the only thing blocking the > >> use of XS 6.5 is the checks that CS does when adding a new host, would > >> this not be considered as a bug? Technically the validation is broken > >> as its intent is to determine whether or not the current resource > >> class can handle the hypervisor. If the current resource class can in > >> fact handle XS6.5 but the validation code says it can't, isn’t this is > a bug? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Adrian > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Tim Mackey [mailto:tmac...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: 20 October 2014 20:10 > >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5 > >> > >> Correct on both counts > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Daan Hoogland > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> thanks Tim, from this I take that hypervisor versions are hardcoded > >>> still, and xenserver 6.5 is supported since 4.5. correct? > >>> > >>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Tim Mackey wrote: > >>> > >>> > Daan, > >>> > > >>> > Here are the relevant commits: > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2 > >>> b > >>> e02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723 > >>> > > >>> > > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b > >>> 7 > >>> f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72 > >>> > > >>> > > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=6 > >>> 7 > >>> 4af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59 > >>> > > >>> > Mike, > >>> > > >>> > Here's an example of the type of DB changes: > >>> > > >>> > > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f > >>> = > >>> setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4 > >>> c > >>> ddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089 > >>> b > >>> 6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=f212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268 > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > >>> > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a > >>> > > DB > >>> > update. > >>> > > > >>> > > Can you clarify that? > >>> > > > >>> > > Thanks! > >>> > > > >>> > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland < > >>> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > >>> > > > >>> > > wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4
Re: XenServer 6.5
with 4.5 you should be fine On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Matthew Midgett wrote: > And where exactly do we stand with this right now? Can I install with ACS 4.5? > > -Original Message- > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:17 AM > To: dev > Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5 > > Adrian, I think your questions/considerations are right and I have been > wondering about the same things. > On one side it should be "allowed unless" instead of "only allowed if". On > the other hand therre are sure to be some features extra or some that might > have a slightly different semantics that might hinder or impair cloudstack. > Not sure what the right answer is. Hope that someone with a view on the > architectural decisions behind it can shed some light. > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Adrian Lewis > wrote: >> With XS 6.5 released, is anyone able to comment on: >> >> 1. Does the 4.5 branch need updating to support it? >> 2. If the changes are so minor, will we see support in 4.3.x or 4.4.x >> as well? >> >> Do we consider this to be a feature or bug? If the code for the >> resource class stays exactly the same and the only thing blocking the >> use of XS 6.5 is the checks that CS does when adding a new host, would >> this not be considered as a bug? Technically the validation is broken >> as its intent is to determine whether or not the current resource >> class can handle the hypervisor. If the current resource class can in >> fact handle XS6.5 but the validation code says it can't, isn’t this is a bug? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Adrian >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Tim Mackey [mailto:tmac...@gmail.com] >> Sent: 20 October 2014 20:10 >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5 >> >> Correct on both counts >> >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Daan Hoogland >> >> wrote: >> >>> thanks Tim, from this I take that hypervisor versions are hardcoded >>> still, and xenserver 6.5 is supported since 4.5. correct? >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Tim Mackey wrote: >>> >>> > Daan, >>> > >>> > Here are the relevant commits: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2 >>> b >>> e02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723 >>> > >>> > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b >>> 7 >>> f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72 >>> > >>> > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=6 >>> 7 >>> 4af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59 >>> > >>> > Mike, >>> > >>> > Here's an example of the type of DB changes: >>> > >>> > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f >>> = >>> setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4 >>> c >>> ddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089 >>> b >>> 6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=f212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268 >>> > >>> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Tutkowski < >>> > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a >>> > > DB >>> > update. >>> > > >>> > > Can you clarify that? >>> > > >>> > > Thanks! >>> > > >>> > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland < >>> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com >>> > > >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db >>> > changes... >>> > > Do >>> > > > you have a commit id? >>> > > > >>> > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey >>> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things >>> > > > > work >>> > > better >>> > > > > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant >>> > > > > issues, >>> being >>> > > able >>> > > > > to support a newer XenServer should
RE: XenServer 6.5
And where exactly do we stand with this right now? Can I install with ACS 4.5? -Original Message- From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:17 AM To: dev Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5 Adrian, I think your questions/considerations are right and I have been wondering about the same things. On one side it should be "allowed unless" instead of "only allowed if". On the other hand therre are sure to be some features extra or some that might have a slightly different semantics that might hinder or impair cloudstack. Not sure what the right answer is. Hope that someone with a view on the architectural decisions behind it can shed some light. On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Adrian Lewis wrote: > With XS 6.5 released, is anyone able to comment on: > > 1. Does the 4.5 branch need updating to support it? > 2. If the changes are so minor, will we see support in 4.3.x or 4.4.x > as well? > > Do we consider this to be a feature or bug? If the code for the > resource class stays exactly the same and the only thing blocking the > use of XS 6.5 is the checks that CS does when adding a new host, would > this not be considered as a bug? Technically the validation is broken > as its intent is to determine whether or not the current resource > class can handle the hypervisor. If the current resource class can in > fact handle XS6.5 but the validation code says it can't, isn’t this is a bug? > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > -Original Message- > From: Tim Mackey [mailto:tmac...@gmail.com] > Sent: 20 October 2014 20:10 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5 > > Correct on both counts > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Daan Hoogland > > wrote: > >> thanks Tim, from this I take that hypervisor versions are hardcoded >> still, and xenserver 6.5 is supported since 4.5. correct? >> >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Tim Mackey wrote: >> >> > Daan, >> > >> > Here are the relevant commits: >> > >> > >> > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2 >> b >> e02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723 >> > >> > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b >> 7 >> f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72 >> > >> > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=6 >> 7 >> 4af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59 >> > >> > Mike, >> > >> > Here's an example of the type of DB changes: >> > >> > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f >> = >> setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4 >> c >> ddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089 >> b >> 6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=f212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268 >> > >> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Tutkowski < >> > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a >> > > DB >> > update. >> > > >> > > Can you clarify that? >> > > >> > > Thanks! >> > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland < >> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db >> > changes... >> > > Do >> > > > you have a commit id? >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things >> > > > > work >> > > better >> > > > > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant >> > > > > issues, >> being >> > > able >> > > > > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a >> > > > > database >> > update. >> > > > So >> > > > > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the >> various >> > > > > pre-release builds since beta.2). >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski < >> > > > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Someone correct me if I'm wro
Re: xenserver 6.5
Adrian, I think your questions/considerations are right and I have been wondering about the same things. On one side it should be "allowed unless" instead of "only allowed if". On the other hand therre are sure to be some features extra or some that might have a slightly different semantics that might hinder or impair cloudstack. Not sure what the right answer is. Hope that someone with a view on the architectural decisions behind it can shed some light. On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Adrian Lewis wrote: > With XS 6.5 released, is anyone able to comment on: > > 1. Does the 4.5 branch need updating to support it? > 2. If the changes are so minor, will we see support in 4.3.x or 4.4.x as > well? > > Do we consider this to be a feature or bug? If the code for the resource > class stays exactly the same and the only thing blocking the use of XS 6.5 > is the checks that CS does when adding a new host, would this not be > considered as a bug? Technically the validation is broken as its intent is > to determine whether or not the current resource class can handle the > hypervisor. If the current resource class can in fact handle XS6.5 but the > validation code says it can't, isn’t this is a bug? > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > -Original Message- > From: Tim Mackey [mailto:tmac...@gmail.com] > Sent: 20 October 2014 20:10 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5 > > Correct on both counts > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Daan Hoogland > wrote: > >> thanks Tim, from this I take that hypervisor versions are hardcoded >> still, and xenserver 6.5 is supported since 4.5. correct? >> >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Tim Mackey wrote: >> >> > Daan, >> > >> > Here are the relevant commits: >> > >> > >> > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2b >> e02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723 >> > >> > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b7 >> f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72 >> > >> > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=67 >> 4af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59 >> > >> > Mike, >> > >> > Here's an example of the type of DB changes: >> > >> > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f= >> setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4c >> ddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089b >> 6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=f212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268 >> > >> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Tutkowski < >> > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a DB >> > update. >> > > >> > > Can you clarify that? >> > > >> > > Thanks! >> > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland < >> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db >> > changes... >> > > Do >> > > > you have a commit id? >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things >> > > > > work >> > > better >> > > > > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues, >> being >> > > able >> > > > > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database >> > update. >> > > > So >> > > > > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the >> various >> > > > > pre-release builds since beta.2). >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski < >> > > > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer >> > resource >> > > > > class >> > > > > > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't >> > > > > > think you >> > > need >> > > > to >> > > > > > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version. >> > > > &
RE: xenserver 6.5
With XS 6.5 released, is anyone able to comment on: 1. Does the 4.5 branch need updating to support it? 2. If the changes are so minor, will we see support in 4.3.x or 4.4.x as well? Do we consider this to be a feature or bug? If the code for the resource class stays exactly the same and the only thing blocking the use of XS 6.5 is the checks that CS does when adding a new host, would this not be considered as a bug? Technically the validation is broken as its intent is to determine whether or not the current resource class can handle the hypervisor. If the current resource class can in fact handle XS6.5 but the validation code says it can't, isn’t this is a bug? Cheers, Adrian -Original Message- From: Tim Mackey [mailto:tmac...@gmail.com] Sent: 20 October 2014 20:10 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5 Correct on both counts On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > thanks Tim, from this I take that hypervisor versions are hardcoded > still, and xenserver 6.5 is supported since 4.5. correct? > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Tim Mackey wrote: > > > Daan, > > > > Here are the relevant commits: > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2b > e02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723 > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b7 > f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72 > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=67 > 4af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59 > > > > Mike, > > > > Here's an example of the type of DB changes: > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f= > setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4c > ddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089b > 6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=f212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268 > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > > > > > Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a DB > > update. > > > > > > Can you clarify that? > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland < > daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db > > changes... > > > Do > > > > you have a commit id? > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things > > > > > work > > > better > > > > > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues, > being > > > able > > > > > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database > > update. > > > > So > > > > > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the > various > > > > > pre-release builds since beta.2). > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > > > > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer > > resource > > > > > class > > > > > > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't > > > > > > think you > > > need > > > > to > > > > > > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of > XenServer, > > > then > > > > > > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle > > > > > > the discrepancies. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis < > > > adr...@alsiconsulting.co.uk > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no > > > > > > > issues > with > > > > using > > > > > > 6.5 > > > > > > > when it's released and there are no > > > > > > > backwards-compatibility > > > problems, > > > > > > will > > > > > > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicit
Re: XenServer 6.5 RC and ACS
There is no XenServer 6.5 support in 4.4 branch. Support exists till XenServer 6.2. -abhi > On 29-Dec-2014, at 11:54 pm, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote: > > Sorry, I do not have a lab to test. > > Could someone verify if 4.4 supports XenServer 6.5 please? > > Thanks > > Andrei > > - Original Message - > >> From: "Pierre-Luc Dion" >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Sent: Monday, 29 December, 2014 5:44:56 PM >> Subject: Re: XenServer 6.5 RC and ACS > >> Hi Andrei, > >> I haven't tested it but it might work with ACS 4.4. do you have a lab >> to >> validate this ? their is reference to XS6.5 into the code which is >> why I'm >> expecting to have it working with 4.4. > >> Cheers, > >> PL > >> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Andrei Mikhailovsky >> >> wrote: > >>> Hello guys, >>> >>> Is there a way to connect XenServer 6.5 RC to ACS? I am using 4.2.1 >>> at the >>> moment and I get an error when I try to add the host. Any >>> unofficial tips >>> on how this could be done on 4.2.1? Or do I need to wait for acs >>> 4.5 to be >>> out? >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Andrei >>> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: XenServer 6.5 RC and ACS
Sorry, I do not have a lab to test. Could someone verify if 4.4 supports XenServer 6.5 please? Thanks Andrei - Original Message - > From: "Pierre-Luc Dion" > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Sent: Monday, 29 December, 2014 5:44:56 PM > Subject: Re: XenServer 6.5 RC and ACS > Hi Andrei, > I haven't tested it but it might work with ACS 4.4. do you have a lab > to > validate this ? their is reference to XS6.5 into the code which is > why I'm > expecting to have it working with 4.4. > Cheers, > PL > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Andrei Mikhailovsky > > wrote: > > Hello guys, > > > > Is there a way to connect XenServer 6.5 RC to ACS? I am using 4.2.1 > > at the > > moment and I get an error when I try to add the host. Any > > unofficial tips > > on how this could be done on 4.2.1? Or do I need to wait for acs > > 4.5 to be > > out? > > > > Cheers > > > > Andrei > >
Re: XenServer 6.5 RC and ACS
It's in master since September, and I think 4.5, but haven't explicitly tried that. On Dec 29, 2014 12:47 PM, "Pierre-Luc Dion" wrote: > Hi Andrei, > > I haven't tested it but it might work with ACS 4.4. do you have a lab to > validate this ? their is reference to XS6.5 into the code which is why I'm > expecting to have it working with 4.4. > > Cheers, > > PL > > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Andrei Mikhailovsky > wrote: > > > Hello guys, > > > > Is there a way to connect XenServer 6.5 RC to ACS? I am using 4.2.1 at > the > > moment and I get an error when I try to add the host. Any unofficial tips > > on how this could be done on 4.2.1? Or do I need to wait for acs 4.5 to > be > > out? > > > > Cheers > > > > Andrei > > >
Re: XenServer 6.5 RC and ACS
Hi Andrei, I haven't tested it but it might work with ACS 4.4. do you have a lab to validate this ? their is reference to XS6.5 into the code which is why I'm expecting to have it working with 4.4. Cheers, PL On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote: > Hello guys, > > Is there a way to connect XenServer 6.5 RC to ACS? I am using 4.2.1 at the > moment and I get an error when I try to add the host. Any unofficial tips > on how this could be done on 4.2.1? Or do I need to wait for acs 4.5 to be > out? > > Cheers > > Andrei >
XenServer 6.5 RC and ACS
Hello guys, Is there a way to connect XenServer 6.5 RC to ACS? I am using 4.2.1 at the moment and I get an error when I try to add the host. Any unofficial tips on how this could be done on 4.2.1? Or do I need to wait for acs 4.5 to be out? Cheers Andrei
Re: xenserver 6.5
Correct on both counts On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > thanks Tim, from this I take that hypervisor versions are hardcoded still, > and xenserver 6.5 is supported since 4.5. correct? > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Tim Mackey wrote: > > > Daan, > > > > Here are the relevant commits: > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2be02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723 > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b7f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72 > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=674af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59 > > > > Mike, > > > > Here's an example of the type of DB changes: > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f=setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4cddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=f212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268 > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > > > > > Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a DB > > update. > > > > > > Can you clarify that? > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland < > daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db > > changes... > > > Do > > > > you have a commit id? > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things work > > > better > > > > > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues, > being > > > able > > > > > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database > > update. > > > > So > > > > > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the > various > > > > > pre-release builds since beta.2). > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > > > > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer > > resource > > > > > class > > > > > > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't think you > > > need > > > > to > > > > > > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of > XenServer, > > > then > > > > > > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle the > > > > > > discrepancies. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis < > > > adr...@alsiconsulting.co.uk > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues > with > > > > using > > > > > > 6.5 > > > > > > > when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility > > > problems, > > > > > > will > > > > > > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told > > > that > > > > > > newer, > > > > > > > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid > > > hypervisor? > > > > > > > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5 > > > when > > > > it > > > > > > > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start > using > > > it? > > > > If > > > > > > so, > > > > > > > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it > > > require > > > > > > > rebuilding? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > > > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:stephen.tur...@citrix.com > > > > ] > > > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28 > > > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apa
Re: xenserver 6.5
thanks Tim, from this I take that hypervisor versions are hardcoded still, and xenserver 6.5 is supported since 4.5. correct? On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Tim Mackey wrote: > Daan, > > Here are the relevant commits: > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2be02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723 > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b7f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72 > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=674af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59 > > Mike, > > Here's an example of the type of DB changes: > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f=setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4cddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=f212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268 > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > > > Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a DB > update. > > > > Can you clarify that? > > > > Thanks! > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland > > > wrote: > > > > > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db > changes... > > Do > > > you have a commit id? > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey wrote: > > > > > > > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things work > > better > > > > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues, being > > able > > > > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database > update. > > > So > > > > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the various > > > > pre-release builds since beta.2). > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > > > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer > resource > > > > class > > > > > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't think you > > need > > > to > > > > > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version. > > > > > > > > > > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of XenServer, > > then > > > > > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle the > > > > > discrepancies. > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis < > > adr...@alsiconsulting.co.uk > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with > > > using > > > > > 6.5 > > > > > > when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility > > problems, > > > > > will > > > > > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told > > that > > > > > newer, > > > > > > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid > > hypervisor? > > > > > > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5 > > when > > > it > > > > > > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using > > it? > > > If > > > > > so, > > > > > > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it > > require > > > > > > rebuilding? > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:stephen.tur...@citrix.com > > > ] > > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28 > > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > > > > > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5 > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are large > > > internal > > > > > > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage > > > datapath, > > > > > > PVHVM > > > > > > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Stephen Turner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > > ] > > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32 > > > > > > To: dev > > > > > > Subject: xenserver 6.5 > > > > > > > > > > > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an > > > idea > > > > of > > > > > > how much effort that is going to be? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Daan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > *Mike Tutkowski* > > > > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > > > > > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > > > > > o: 303.746.7302 > > > > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud > > > > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Daan > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Mike Tutkowski* > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > > o: 303.746.7302 > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* > > > -- Daan
Re: xenserver 6.5
Daan, Here are the relevant commits: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2be02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723 https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b7f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72 https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=674af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59 Mike, Here's an example of the type of DB changes: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f=setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4cddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=f212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268 On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Tutkowski < mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a DB update. > > Can you clarify that? > > Thanks! > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland > wrote: > > > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db changes... > Do > > you have a commit id? > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey wrote: > > > > > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things work > better > > > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues, being > able > > > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database update. > > So > > > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the various > > > pre-release builds since beta.2). > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer resource > > > class > > > > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't think you > need > > to > > > > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version. > > > > > > > > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of XenServer, > then > > > > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle the > > > > discrepancies. > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis < > adr...@alsiconsulting.co.uk > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with > > using > > > > 6.5 > > > > > when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility > problems, > > > > will > > > > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told > that > > > > newer, > > > > > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid > hypervisor? > > > > > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5 > when > > it > > > > > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using > it? > > If > > > > so, > > > > > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it > require > > > > > rebuilding? > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:stephen.tur...@citrix.com > > ] > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28 > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > > > > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5 > > > > > > > > > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are large > > internal > > > > > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage > > datapath, > > > > > PVHVM > > > > > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Stephen Turner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > ] > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32 > > > > > To: dev > > > > > Subject: xenserver 6.5 > > > > > > > > > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an > > idea > > > of > > > > > how much effort that is going to be? > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Daan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > *Mike Tutkowski* > > > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > > > > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > > > > o: 303.746.7302 > > > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud > > > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Daan > > > > > > -- > *Mike Tutkowski* > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > o: 303.746.7302 > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* >
Re: xenserver 6.5
Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a DB update. Can you clarify that? Thanks! On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db changes... Do > you have a commit id? > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey wrote: > > > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things work better > > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues, being able > > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database update. > So > > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the various > > pre-release builds since beta.2). > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > > > > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer resource > > class > > > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't think you need > to > > > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version. > > > > > > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of XenServer, then > > > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle the > > > discrepancies. > > > > > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with > using > > > 6.5 > > > > when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility problems, > > > will > > > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told that > > > newer, > > > > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid hypervisor? > > > > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5 when > it > > > > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using it? > If > > > so, > > > > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it require > > > > rebuilding? > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:stephen.tur...@citrix.com > ] > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28 > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > > > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5 > > > > > > > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are large > internal > > > > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage > datapath, > > > > PVHVM > > > > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Stephen Turner > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com ] > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32 > > > > To: dev > > > > Subject: xenserver 6.5 > > > > > > > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an > idea > > of > > > > how much effort that is going to be? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Daan > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > *Mike Tutkowski* > > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > > > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > > > o: 303.746.7302 > > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud > > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* > > > > > > > > > -- > Daan > -- *Mike Tutkowski* *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com o: 303.746.7302 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
Re: xenserver 6.5
Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db changes... Do you have a commit id? On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey wrote: > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things work better > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues, being able > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database update. So > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the various > pre-release builds since beta.2). > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer resource > class > > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't think you need to > > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version. > > > > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of XenServer, then > > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle the > > discrepancies. > > > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis > > wrote: > > > > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with using > > 6.5 > > > when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility problems, > > will > > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told that > > newer, > > > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid hypervisor? > > > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5 when it > > > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using it? If > > so, > > > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it require > > > rebuilding? > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:stephen.tur...@citrix.com ] > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28 > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5 > > > > > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are large internal > > > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage datapath, > > > PVHVM > > > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged. > > > > > > -- > > > Stephen Turner > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com ] > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32 > > > To: dev > > > Subject: xenserver 6.5 > > > > > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an idea > of > > > how much effort that is going to be? > > > > > > -- > > > Daan > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Mike Tutkowski* > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > > o: 303.746.7302 > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* > > > -- Daan
Re: xenserver 6.5
I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things work better (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues, being able to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database update. So net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the various pre-release builds since beta.2). On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski < mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer resource class > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't think you need to > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version. > > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of XenServer, then > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle the > discrepancies. > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis > wrote: > > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with using > 6.5 > > when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility problems, > will > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told that > newer, > > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid hypervisor? > > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5 when it > > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using it? If > so, > > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it require > > rebuilding? > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:stephen.tur...@citrix.com ] > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28 > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5 > > > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are large internal > > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage datapath, > > PVHVM > > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged. > > > > -- > > Stephen Turner > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com ] > > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32 > > To: dev > > Subject: xenserver 6.5 > > > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an idea of > > how much effort that is going to be? > > > > -- > > Daan > > > > > -- > *Mike Tutkowski* > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > o: 303.746.7302 > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* >
Re: xenserver 6.5
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer resource class can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't think you need to make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version. If you do see some incompatibility with that version of XenServer, then someone would need to create a new resource class to handle the discrepancies. On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis wrote: > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with using 6.5 > when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility problems, will > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told that newer, > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid hypervisor? > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5 when it > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using it? If so, > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it require > rebuilding? > > -Original Message- > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:stephen.tur...@citrix.com ] > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5 > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are large internal > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage datapath, > PVHVM > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged. > > -- > Stephen Turner > > > -Original Message- > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com ] > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32 > To: dev > Subject: xenserver 6.5 > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an idea of > how much effort that is going to be? > > -- > Daan > -- *Mike Tutkowski* *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com o: 303.746.7302 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
Re: xenserver 6.5
Adrian, It should be a db insert. (hope i'm not missing anything) On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Adrian Lewis wrote: > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with using 6.5 > when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility problems, will > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told that newer, > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid hypervisor? > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5 when it > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using it? If so, > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it require > rebuilding? > > -Original Message- > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:stephen.tur...@citrix.com] > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5 > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are large internal > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage datapath, > PVHVM > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged. > > -- > Stephen Turner > > > -Original Message- > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32 > To: dev > Subject: xenserver 6.5 > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an idea of > how much effort that is going to be? > > -- > Daan > -- Daan
RE: xenserver 6.5
Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with using 6.5 when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility problems, will it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told that newer, effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid hypervisor? Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5 when it comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using it? If so, are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it require rebuilding? -Original Message- From: Stephen Turner [mailto:stephen.tur...@citrix.com] Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5 I think it should be minimal, because although there are large internal changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage datapath, PVHVM mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged. -- Stephen Turner -Original Message- From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32 To: dev Subject: xenserver 6.5 Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an idea of how much effort that is going to be? -- Daan
[ACS4.5] RE: xenserver 6.5
Hi, We did some preliminary validation with ACS 4.5 and XS 6.5 (Beta release versions) in our labs and it is working fine with no blocker issues. Besides the features listed by Stephen below, some additional guest OS are introduced in this release. Thanks /Sudha -Original Message- From: Stephen Turner [mailto:stephen.tur...@citrix.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 7:28 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5 I think it should be minimal, because although there are large internal changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage datapath, PVHVM mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged. -- Stephen Turner -Original Message- From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32 To: dev Subject: xenserver 6.5 Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an idea of how much effort that is going to be? -- Daan
RE: xenserver 6.5
I think it should be minimal, because although there are large internal changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage datapath, PVHVM mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged. -- Stephen Turner -Original Message- From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32 To: dev Subject: xenserver 6.5 Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an idea of how much effort that is going to be? -- Daan
xenserver 6.5
Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an idea of how much effort that is going to be? -- Daan
