Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS

[Jake G.]

Ive been reading that it is not possible to use Cloudstack with glusterfs + 
VMware hosts?

Can anyone confirm this?




 From: Jake G. 
To: "users@cloudstack.apache.org"  
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:26 PM
Subject: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS
 

Hi all,

I have a working Cloudstack environment on Centos 6.4. I also have a working 
GlusterFS cluster volume working on two other servers.
I was able to mount the GlusterFS volume to a folder via CentOS CLI but went 
trying to add the volume as a primary or secondary storage via the Coudstack 
GUI it failed.

Anyone know how to do this or have any useful links?

Thank you in advance!
Jake

Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS

[Rafael Weingartner]

I think that CS will not even know that it is a Distributed FS since you
can mount the distributed volume in a folder and export it with NFS.

The question should be, is a distributed FS interesting to be used in a
cloud environment? Since there is a cost to use this kind of model and it
may or may not have performance problems since read and write speed are
crucial for the whole system.

As and example here we use a RAID controller as the bases for storage of
our cloud, we achieved something around 60MB+ of writing and reading speed,
which is pretty good. How would be the performance of Gluster in your
environment? All of your storage server have gigabyte connections?


2013/9/11 Jake G. 

> Ive been reading that it is not possible to use Cloudstack with glusterfs
> + VMware hosts?
>
> Can anyone confirm this?
>
>
>
> 
>  From: Jake G. 
> To: "users@cloudstack.apache.org" 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:26 PM
> Subject: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have a working Cloudstack environment on Centos 6.4. I also have a
> working GlusterFS cluster volume working on two other servers.
> I was able to mount the GlusterFS volume to a folder via CentOS CLI but
> went trying to add the volume as a primary or secondary storage via the
> Coudstack GUI it failed.
>
> Anyone know how to do this or have any useful links?
>
> Thank you in advance!
> Jake
>



-- 
Rafael Weingartner

Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS

[Tomasz Zięba]

Hi,

Some time ago I tried to use GlusterFS as storage for cloudstacka but I
noticed that cloudstack uses the default settings for mount command.

By default mount command is using the UDP protocol but glusterfs works only
using tcp.
I think, if cloudstack developers could add "-o proto=tcp" to code
glusterfs should works.

For example:
/bin/mount -t nfs -o proto=tcp IP:/share /mnt/gluster/

If you are using CitrixXen you should mount the share and make it as SR.
For cloudstacka is clear because you should use the option PreSetup when
creating PrimaryStorage.

Personally, I doubt that using GlusterFS as a primary storage is a good
solution but for secondary storage it should be very usefull.


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


2013/9/11 Jake G. 

> Ive been reading that it is not possible to use Cloudstack with glusterfs
> + VMware hosts?
>
> Can anyone confirm this?
>
>
>
> 
>  From: Jake G. 
> To: "users@cloudstack.apache.org" 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:26 PM
> Subject: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have a working Cloudstack environment on Centos 6.4. I also have a
> working GlusterFS cluster volume working on two other servers.
> I was able to mount the GlusterFS volume to a folder via CentOS CLI but
> went trying to add the volume as a primary or secondary storage via the
> Coudstack GUI it failed.
>
> Anyone know how to do this or have any useful links?
>
> Thank you in advance!
> Jake

Vmware vrouter

[Alexey Samarin]

Dear all!

In my cs 4.1.1 with vmware cluster. Can't start virtual router, can't
understand why?

This is log of management-server http://pastebin.com/pbN0qG9w

Please, if anyone have any idea - write me :)

CS 4.1.1 got from cloudstack.apt-get.eu (rpm)

Thanks!

Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)

[Ron Wheeler]

I would be happy to work with you on the issues that I raised and on the 
installation process in general.

I can set up a collaboration meeting if that suits you.

Ron


On 10/09/2013 7:46 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:

Ron

I am not too happy with the documentation side too and will put in time in next 
2-3 days to clear up whatever I can on documentation before the formal 
annoucement. This is a community effort and every help is appreciated.


Animesh


-Original Message-
From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 3:56 PM
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; d...@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)

I am very disappointed that 4.2 will be released without fixing
longstanding documentation problems.
There is no point is asking us to file JIRA issues if the developers are
not going to fix them.

The first impression for CloudStack is made in the installation docs. It is
makes the whole project look amateurish  when the installation does not
work.


Ron

On 10/09/2013 4:12 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:

The vote has *passed* with the following results (binding PMC votes

indicated with a "*" next to their name:

+1 : Edison*, Chiradeep*, Sebastien*, Prasanna*, Rajesh Batala, Ove
+Ewerlid
-1 : Marcus*, Chip*, Simon Weller

I'm going to proceed with moving the release into the distribution
repo now and work on release notes and other documentation tasks

The -1 are recorded for the CLVM issue [1]. A fix for this issue is

available and fixed in 4.2-forward branch and will be available for  4.2.1.
If anyone needs the fix now they can cherry-pick from 4.2-forward with
commitId f2c5b5fbfe45196dfad2821fca513ddd6efa25c9. This issue will be
release noted.


[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4618


Thanks
Animesh



--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102





--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102

Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS

[Shanker Balan]

On 11-Sep-2013, at 5:14 PM, Tomasz Zięba  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Some time ago I tried to use GlusterFS as storage for cloudstacka but I
> noticed that cloudstack uses the default settings for mount command.
>
> By default mount command is using the UDP protocol but glusterfs works only
> using tcp.
> I think, if cloudstack developers could add "-o proto=tcp" to code
> glusterfs should works.
>
> For example:
> /bin/mount -t nfs -o proto=tcp IP:/share /mnt/gluster/
>
> If you are using CitrixXen you should mount the share and make it as SR.
> For cloudstacka is clear because you should use the option PreSetup when
> creating PrimaryStorage.
>
> Personally, I doubt that using GlusterFS as a primary storage is a good
> solution but for secondary storage it should be very usefull.


And maybe as a Swift backend.



--
@shankerbalan

M: +91 98860 60539 | O: +91 (80) 67935867
shanker.ba...@shapeblue.com | www.shapeblue.com | Twitter:@shapeblue
ShapeBlue Services India LLP, 22nd floor, Unit 2201A, World Trade Centre, 
Bangalore - 560 055

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 operated under 
license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.

Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS

[Rafael Weingartner]

I totally agree with Tomasz, I do not think that using a distributed FS as
primary storage is a good idea, but as a secondary it sounds interesting.

But, off course you can try *;*)


2013/9/11 Shanker Balan 

> On 11-Sep-2013, at 5:14 PM, Tomasz Zięba  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Some time ago I tried to use GlusterFS as storage for cloudstacka but I
> > noticed that cloudstack uses the default settings for mount command.
> >
> > By default mount command is using the UDP protocol but glusterfs works
> only
> > using tcp.
> > I think, if cloudstack developers could add "-o proto=tcp" to code
> > glusterfs should works.
> >
> > For example:
> > /bin/mount -t nfs -o proto=tcp IP:/share /mnt/gluster/
> >
> > If you are using CitrixXen you should mount the share and make it as SR.
> > For cloudstacka is clear because you should use the option PreSetup when
> > creating PrimaryStorage.
> >
> > Personally, I doubt that using GlusterFS as a primary storage is a good
> > solution but for secondary storage it should be very usefull.
>
>
> And maybe as a Swift backend.
>
>
>
> --
> @shankerbalan
>
> M: +91 98860 60539 | O: +91 (80) 67935867
> shanker.ba...@shapeblue.com | www.shapeblue.com | Twitter:@shapeblue
> ShapeBlue Services India LLP, 22nd floor, Unit 2201A, World Trade Centre,
> Bangalore - 560 055
>
> 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
> operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered
> trademark.
>



-- 
Rafael Weingartner

Re: Vmware vrouter

[Rafael Weingartner]

could you check the hypervisor logs ?


2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 

> Dear all!
>
> In my cs 4.1.1 with vmware cluster. Can't start virtual router, can't
> understand why?
>
> This is log of management-server http://pastebin.com/pbN0qG9w
>
> Please, if anyone have any idea - write me :)
>
> CS 4.1.1 got from cloudstack.apt-get.eu (rpm)
>
> Thanks!
>



-- 
Rafael Weingartner

Re: Vmware vrouter

[Alexey Samarin]

In vmware logs - nothing.


2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 

> could you check the hypervisor logs ?
>
>
> 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
>
> > Dear all!
> >
> > In my cs 4.1.1 with vmware cluster. Can't start virtual router, can't
> > understand why?
> >
> > This is log of management-server http://pastebin.com/pbN0qG9w
> >
> > Please, if anyone have any idea - write me :)
> >
> > CS 4.1.1 got from cloudstack.apt-get.eu (rpm)
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingartner
>

Re: Vmware vrouter

[Rafael Weingartner]

the system VMs started normally?


2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 

> In vmware logs - nothing.
>
>
> 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
>
> > could you check the hypervisor logs ?
> >
> >
> > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
> >
> > > Dear all!
> > >
> > > In my cs 4.1.1 with vmware cluster. Can't start virtual router, can't
> > > understand why?
> > >
> > > This is log of management-server http://pastebin.com/pbN0qG9w
> > >
> > > Please, if anyone have any idea - write me :)
> > >
> > > CS 4.1.1 got from cloudstack.apt-get.eu (rpm)
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rafael Weingartner
> >
>



-- 
Rafael Weingartner

Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS

[Olivier Mauras]

 

Hi,

Those thinking that it's not a good idea, do you mind
explaining your point of view?
GlusterFS seems like the only real
alternative to a highly priced SAN for the primary storage...


Thanks,
Olivier 

On 2013-09-11 15:08, Rafael Weingartner wrote: 

> I
totally agree with Tomasz, I do not think that using a distributed FS
as
> primary storage is a good idea, but as a secondary it sounds
interesting.
> 
> But, off course you can try *;*)
> 
> 2013/9/11
Shanker Balan 
> 
>> On 11-Sep-2013, at
5:14 PM, Tomasz Zięba  wrote: 
>> 
>>> Hi, Some
time ago I tried to use GlusterFS as storage for cloudstacka but I
noticed that cloudstack uses the default settings for mount command. By
default mount command is using the UDP protocol but glusterfs works
>>
only 
>> 
>>> using tcp. I think, if cloudstack developers could add "-o
proto=tcp" to code glusterfs should works. For example: /bin/mount -t
nfs -o proto=tcp IP:/share /mnt/gluster/ If you are using CitrixXen you
should mount the share and make it as SR. For cloudstacka is clear
because you should use the option PreSetup when creating PrimaryStorage.
Personally, I doubt that using GlusterFS as a primary storage is a good
solution but for secondary storage it should be very usefull.
>> And
maybe as a Swift backend. -- @shankerbalan M: +91 98860 60539 | O: +91
(80) 67935867 shanker.ba...@shapeblue.com [2] | www.shapeblue.com [3] |
Twitter:@shapeblue ShapeBlue Services India LLP, 22nd floor, Unit 2201A,
World Trade Centre, Bangalore - 560 055 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
operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered
trademark.
> 
> -- Rafael Weingartner

 

Links:
--
[1]
mailto:t.a.zi...@gmail.com
[2] mailto:shanker.ba...@shapeblue.com
[3]
http://www.shapeblue.com

Re: Vmware vrouter

[Alexey Samarin]

System VMs already started in KVM cluster :)


2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 

> the system VMs started normally?
>
>
> 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
>
> > In vmware logs - nothing.
> >
> >
> > 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
> >
> > > could you check the hypervisor logs ?
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
> > >
> > > > Dear all!
> > > >
> > > > In my cs 4.1.1 with vmware cluster. Can't start virtual router, can't
> > > > understand why?
> > > >
> > > > This is log of management-server http://pastebin.com/pbN0qG9w
> > > >
> > > > Please, if anyone have any idea - write me :)
> > > >
> > > > CS 4.1.1 got from cloudstack.apt-get.eu (rpm)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rafael Weingartner
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingartner
>

Re: Vmware vrouter

[Rafael Weingartner]

have you tried to remove the VMware cluster and start the router?


2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 

> System VMs already started in KVM cluster :)
>
>
> 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
>
> > the system VMs started normally?
> >
> >
> > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
> >
> > > In vmware logs - nothing.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
> > >
> > > > could you check the hypervisor logs ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
> > > >
> > > > > Dear all!
> > > > >
> > > > > In my cs 4.1.1 with vmware cluster. Can't start virtual router,
> can't
> > > > > understand why?
> > > > >
> > > > > This is log of management-server http://pastebin.com/pbN0qG9w
> > > > >
> > > > > Please, if anyone have any idea - write me :)
> > > > >
> > > > > CS 4.1.1 got from cloudstack.apt-get.eu (rpm)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Rafael Weingartner
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rafael Weingartner
> >
>



-- 
Rafael Weingartner

Re: Vmware vrouter

[Alexey Samarin]

In kvm cluster i already have router.
First was added kvm cluster and works perfectly. Now i added vmware
cluster, but in vmware router can't start.
Default template for vmware was successfully downloaded and have status
"Ready".


2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 

> have you tried to remove the VMware cluster and start the router?
>
>
> 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
>
> > System VMs already started in KVM cluster :)
> >
> >
> > 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
> >
> > > the system VMs started normally?
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
> > >
> > > > In vmware logs - nothing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
> > > >
> > > > > could you check the hypervisor logs ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dear all!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In my cs 4.1.1 with vmware cluster. Can't start virtual router,
> > can't
> > > > > > understand why?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is log of management-server http://pastebin.com/pbN0qG9w
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please, if anyone have any idea - write me :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CS 4.1.1 got from cloudstack.apt-get.eu (rpm)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Rafael Weingartner
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rafael Weingartner
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingartner
>

Re: Vmware vrouter

[Rafael Weingartner]

have you tried to create a instance with this template?


2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 

> In kvm cluster i already have router.
> First was added kvm cluster and works perfectly. Now i added vmware
> cluster, but in vmware router can't start.
> Default template for vmware was successfully downloaded and have status
> "Ready".
>
>
> 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
>
> > have you tried to remove the VMware cluster and start the router?
> >
> >
> > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
> >
> > > System VMs already started in KVM cluster :)
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
> > >
> > > > the system VMs started normally?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
> > > >
> > > > > In vmware logs - nothing.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
> > > > >
> > > > > > could you check the hypervisor logs ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear all!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In my cs 4.1.1 with vmware cluster. Can't start virtual router,
> > > can't
> > > > > > > understand why?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is log of management-server http://pastebin.com/pbN0qG9w
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please, if anyone have any idea - write me :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > CS 4.1.1 got from cloudstack.apt-get.eu (rpm)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Rafael Weingartner
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Rafael Weingartner
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rafael Weingartner
> >
>



-- 
Rafael Weingartner

Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS

[Rafael Weingartner]

Right now I can think in three main reasons:

The first reason, performance (I do not know Gluster and its performance
and if the read and write speed are satisfactory). Please if you can make a
test, post the results.

Second consistency, I do not know Gluster, but swift that is also a
Distributed File System is not consistency and they make it pretty clear on
their page (http://docs.openstack.org/developer/swift/)

"Swift is a highly available, distributed, eventually consistent
object/blob store...".

I would not accept to storage my VMs images on a FS that is eventually
consistent.

Third, network, I haven't used this kind of FS, but I can image that it
uses a lot of bandwidth to keep synchronizing, managing and securing the
data. So, managing the networking would be a pain.



2013/9/11 Olivier Mauras 

>
>
> Hi,
>
> Those thinking that it's not a good idea, do you mind
> explaining your point of view?
> GlusterFS seems like the only real
> alternative to a highly priced SAN for the primary storage...
>
>
> Thanks,
> Olivier
>
> On 2013-09-11 15:08, Rafael Weingartner wrote:
>
> > I
> totally agree with Tomasz, I do not think that using a distributed FS
> as
> > primary storage is a good idea, but as a secondary it sounds
> interesting.
> >
> > But, off course you can try *;*)
> >
> > 2013/9/11
> Shanker Balan 
> >
> >> On 11-Sep-2013, at
> 5:14 PM, Tomasz Zięba  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, Some
> time ago I tried to use GlusterFS as storage for cloudstacka but I
> noticed that cloudstack uses the default settings for mount command. By
> default mount command is using the UDP protocol but glusterfs works
> >>
> only
> >>
> >>> using tcp. I think, if cloudstack developers could add "-o
> proto=tcp" to code glusterfs should works. For example: /bin/mount -t
> nfs -o proto=tcp IP:/share /mnt/gluster/ If you are using CitrixXen you
> should mount the share and make it as SR. For cloudstacka is clear
> because you should use the option PreSetup when creating PrimaryStorage.
> Personally, I doubt that using GlusterFS as a primary storage is a good
> solution but for secondary storage it should be very usefull.
> >> And
> maybe as a Swift backend. -- @shankerbalan M: +91 98860 60539 | O: +91
> (80) 67935867 shanker.ba...@shapeblue.com [2] | www.shapeblue.com [3] |
> Twitter:@shapeblue ShapeBlue Services India LLP, 22nd floor, Unit 2201A,
> World Trade Centre, Bangalore - 560 055 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
> operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered
> trademark.
> >
> > -- Rafael Weingartner
>
>
>
> Links:
> --
> [1]
> mailto:t.a.zi...@gmail.com
> [2] mailto:shanker.ba...@shapeblue.com
> [3]
> http://www.shapeblue.com
>



-- 
Rafael Weingartner

Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)

[Travis Graham]

I'd be glad to jump in and help with this as well. I've taken notes on things 
that differ from the docs when we were setting up a few test environments and 
would love to help out to get the doc in shape in any way I can.

Travis

On Sep 11, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Ron Wheeler  wrote:

> I would be happy to work with you on the issues that I raised and on the 
> installation process in general.
> I can set up a collaboration meeting if that suits you.
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> On 10/09/2013 7:46 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>> Ron
>> 
>> I am not too happy with the documentation side too and will put in time in 
>> next 2-3 days to clear up whatever I can on documentation before the formal 
>> annoucement. This is a community effort and every help is appreciated.
>> 
>> 
>> Animesh
>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 3:56 PM
>>> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; d...@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)
>>> 
>>> I am very disappointed that 4.2 will be released without fixing
>>> longstanding documentation problems.
>>> There is no point is asking us to file JIRA issues if the developers are
>>> not going to fix them.
>>> 
>>> The first impression for CloudStack is made in the installation docs. It is
>>> makes the whole project look amateurish  when the installation does not
>>> work.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ron
>>> 
>>> On 10/09/2013 4:12 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
 The vote has *passed* with the following results (binding PMC votes
>>> indicated with a "*" next to their name:
 +1 : Edison*, Chiradeep*, Sebastien*, Prasanna*, Rajesh Batala, Ove
 +Ewerlid
 -1 : Marcus*, Chip*, Simon Weller
 
 I'm going to proceed with moving the release into the distribution
 repo now and work on release notes and other documentation tasks
 
 The -1 are recorded for the CLVM issue [1]. A fix for this issue is
>>> available and fixed in 4.2-forward branch and will be available for  4.2.1.
>>> If anyone needs the fix now they can cherry-pick from 4.2-forward with
>>> commitId f2c5b5fbfe45196dfad2821fca513ddd6efa25c9. This issue will be
>>> release noted.
 
 [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4618
 
 
 Thanks
 Animesh
 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Ron Wheeler
>>> President
>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>> email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> 

Re: Vmware vrouter

[Alexey Samarin]

It's good question! No, but I will try...
On Sep 11, 2013 5:49 PM, "Rafael Weingartner" 
wrote:

> have you tried to create a instance with this template?
>
>
> 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
>
> > In kvm cluster i already have router.
> > First was added kvm cluster and works perfectly. Now i added vmware
> > cluster, but in vmware router can't start.
> > Default template for vmware was successfully downloaded and have status
> > "Ready".
> >
> >
> > 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
> >
> > > have you tried to remove the VMware cluster and start the router?
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
> > >
> > > > System VMs already started in KVM cluster :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
> > > >
> > > > > the system VMs started normally?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
> > > > >
> > > > > > In vmware logs - nothing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > could you check the hypervisor logs ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dear all!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In my cs 4.1.1 with vmware cluster. Can't start virtual
> router,
> > > > can't
> > > > > > > > understand why?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is log of management-server
> http://pastebin.com/pbN0qG9w
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please, if anyone have any idea - write me :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > CS 4.1.1 got from cloudstack.apt-get.eu (rpm)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Rafael Weingartner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Rafael Weingartner
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rafael Weingartner
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingartner
>

Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS

[John Skinner]

I currently have GlusterFS deployed into an 8 node KVM cluster running on 
CloudStack 4.1 for primary storage. Gluster is deployed on 28 1TB drives across 
2 separate storage appliances using a distributed-replicated volume with the 
replica set to 2. The storage network is 10Gb copper. 

These are the options I have configured for the volume in Gluster, most of them 
are from a Red Hat document on configuring Red Hat Enterprise Storage for VM 
hosting: 



performance.io-thread-count: 32 
performance.cache-size: 1024MB 
performance.write-behind-window-size: 5MB 
performance.write-behind: on 
network.remote-dio: on 
cluster.eager-lock: enable 
performance.stat-prefetch: off 
performance.io-cache: on 
performance.read-ahead: on 
performance.quick-read: on 

Here are some of the numbers I was getting when benchmarking the storage from 
the KVM node directly (not a VM) 

The below table is in KB/s. The test is single stream 1GB file utilizing Direct 
I/O (no cache). I used iozone to run the benchmark. 

Write 4k45729 
Read 4k 10189 
Random Write 4k 31983 
Random Read 4k  9859 
Write 16k   182246 
Read 16k37146 
Random Write 16k113026 
Random Read 16k 37237 
Write 64k   420908 
Read 64k125315 
Random Write 64k383848 
Random Read 64k 125218 
Write 256k  567501 
Read 256k   218413 
Random Write 256k   508650 
Random Read 256k229117 

In the above results, I have the volume mounted to each KVM host as a FUSE 
glusterfs file system. They are added to CloudStack as a shared mount point. In 
the future it would be great to utilize GlusterFS qemu libvirt integration with 
libgfapi so I could bypass fuse altogether. However, that would require adding 
that code to CloudStack to support that. 

I maybe have 15 or so VMs running from the storage now and it is still pretty 
snappy. Need to do some more testing though and really get it loaded. 

- Original Message -

From: "Rafael Weingartner"  
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org 
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:48:07 AM 
Subject: Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS 

Right now I can think in three main reasons: 

The first reason, performance (I do not know Gluster and its performance 
and if the read and write speed are satisfactory). Please if you can make a 
test, post the results. 

Second consistency, I do not know Gluster, but swift that is also a 
Distributed File System is not consistency and they make it pretty clear on 
their page (http://docs.openstack.org/developer/swift/) 

"Swift is a highly available, distributed, eventually consistent 
object/blob store...". 

I would not accept to storage my VMs images on a FS that is eventually 
consistent. 

Third, network, I haven't used this kind of FS, but I can image that it 
uses a lot of bandwidth to keep synchronizing, managing and securing the 
data. So, managing the networking would be a pain. 



2013/9/11 Olivier Mauras  

> 
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> Those thinking that it's not a good idea, do you mind 
> explaining your point of view? 
> GlusterFS seems like the only real 
> alternative to a highly priced SAN for the primary storage... 
> 
> 
> Thanks, 
> Olivier 
> 
> On 2013-09-11 15:08, Rafael Weingartner wrote: 
> 
> > I 
> totally agree with Tomasz, I do not think that using a distributed FS 
> as 
> > primary storage is a good idea, but as a secondary it sounds 
> interesting. 
> > 
> > But, off course you can try *;*) 
> > 
> > 2013/9/11 
> Shanker Balan  
> > 
> >> On 11-Sep-2013, at 
> 5:14 PM, Tomasz Zięba  wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> Hi, Some 
> time ago I tried to use GlusterFS as storage for cloudstacka but I 
> noticed that cloudstack uses the default settings for mount command. By 
> default mount command is using the UDP protocol but glusterfs works 
> >> 
> only 
> >> 
> >>> using tcp. I think, if cloudstack developers could add "-o 
> proto=tcp" to code glusterfs should works. For example: /bin/mount -t 
> nfs -o proto=tcp IP:/share /mnt/gluster/ If you are using CitrixXen you 
> should mount the share and make it as SR. For cloudstacka is clear 
> because you should use the option PreSetup when creating PrimaryStorage. 
> Personally, I doubt that using GlusterFS as a primary storage is a good 
> solution but for secondary storage it should be very usefull. 
> >> And 
> maybe as a Swift backend. -- @shankerbalan M: +91 98860 60539 | O: +91 
> (80) 67935867 shanker.ba...@shapeblue.com [2] | www.shapeblue.com [3] | 
> Twitter:@shapeblue ShapeBlue Services India LLP, 22nd floor, Unit 2201A, 
> World Trade Centre, Bangalore - 560 055 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

Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)

[Ron Wheeler]

Tomorrow is a bit crowded for me
Free after 10 PST for 1 hour
Free from 12 PST for 1/2 hour

On Friday, I am out for the day.

Ron

On 11/09/2013 1:04 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:

Thanks Ron

I am planning to work on Release Notes in the morning, do you have time later 
in the day or tomorrow morning PST for Installation issues.

Thanks
Animesh


-Original Message-
From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 5:32 AM
To: Animesh Chaturvedi
Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org; d...@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth
round)

I would be happy to work with you on the issues that I raised and on
the installation process in general.
I can set up a collaboration meeting if that suits you.

Ron


On 10/09/2013 7:46 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:

Ron

I am not too happy with the documentation side too and will put in

time in next 2-3 days to clear up whatever I can on documentation
before the formal annoucement. This is a community effort and every
help is appreciated.


Animesh


-Original Message-
From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 3:56 PM
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; d...@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth
round)

I am very disappointed that 4.2 will be released without fixing
longstanding documentation problems.
There is no point is asking us to file JIRA issues if the developers
are not going to fix them.

The first impression for CloudStack is made in the installation

docs.

It is makes the whole project look amateurish  when the installation
does not work.


Ron

On 10/09/2013 4:12 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:

The vote has *passed* with the following results (binding PMC votes

indicated with a "*" next to their name:

+1 : Edison*, Chiradeep*, Sebastien*, Prasanna*, Rajesh Batala, Ove
+Ewerlid
-1 : Marcus*, Chip*, Simon Weller

I'm going to proceed with moving the release into the distribution
repo now and work on release notes and other documentation tasks

The -1 are recorded for the CLVM issue [1]. A fix for this issue is

available and fixed in 4.2-forward branch and will be available for

4.2.1.

If anyone needs the fix now they can cherry-pick from 4.2-forward
with commitId f2c5b5fbfe45196dfad2821fca513ddd6efa25c9. This issue
will be release noted.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4618





--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102

Re: Vmware vrouter

[Rafael Weingartner]

could you post a little more of the log?


2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 

> Yes, this template can't be deploy as vm, but still don't understand why?
> This is log of management-server.log http://pastebin.com/hqcHMBd0
> Thanks!
>
>
> 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
>
> > It's good question! No, but I will try...
> > On Sep 11, 2013 5:49 PM, "Rafael Weingartner" <
> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> have you tried to create a instance with this template?
> >>
> >>
> >> 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
> >>
> >> > In kvm cluster i already have router.
> >> > First was added kvm cluster and works perfectly. Now i added vmware
> >> > cluster, but in vmware router can't start.
> >> > Default template for vmware was successfully downloaded and have
> status
> >> > "Ready".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
> >> >
> >> > > have you tried to remove the VMware cluster and start the router?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
> >> > >
> >> > > > System VMs already started in KVM cluster :)
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > the system VMs started normally?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > In vmware logs - nothing.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > could you check the hypervisor logs ?
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Dear all!
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > In my cs 4.1.1 with vmware cluster. Can't start virtual
> >> router,
> >> > > > can't
> >> > > > > > > > understand why?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > This is log of management-server
> >> http://pastebin.com/pbN0qG9w
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Please, if anyone have any idea - write me :)
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > CS 4.1.1 got from cloudstack.apt-get.eu (rpm)
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > Rafael Weingartner
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > Rafael Weingartner
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Rafael Weingartner
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rafael Weingartner
> >>
> >
>



-- 
Rafael Weingartner

RE: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)

[Animesh Chaturvedi]

Thanks Ron

I am planning to work on Release Notes in the morning, do you have time later 
in the day or tomorrow morning PST for Installation issues.

Thanks
Animesh

> -Original Message-
> From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 5:32 AM
> To: Animesh Chaturvedi
> Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org; d...@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth
> round)
> 
> I would be happy to work with you on the issues that I raised and on
> the installation process in general.
> I can set up a collaboration meeting if that suits you.
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> On 10/09/2013 7:46 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> > Ron
> >
> > I am not too happy with the documentation side too and will put in
> time in next 2-3 days to clear up whatever I can on documentation
> before the formal annoucement. This is a community effort and every
> help is appreciated.
> >
> >
> > Animesh
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 3:56 PM
> >> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; d...@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth
> >> round)
> >>
> >> I am very disappointed that 4.2 will be released without fixing
> >> longstanding documentation problems.
> >> There is no point is asking us to file JIRA issues if the developers
> >> are not going to fix them.
> >>
> >> The first impression for CloudStack is made in the installation
> docs.
> >> It is makes the whole project look amateurish  when the installation
> >> does not work.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> >> On 10/09/2013 4:12 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> >>> The vote has *passed* with the following results (binding PMC votes
> >> indicated with a "*" next to their name:
> >>> +1 : Edison*, Chiradeep*, Sebastien*, Prasanna*, Rajesh Batala, Ove
> >>> +Ewerlid
> >>> -1 : Marcus*, Chip*, Simon Weller
> >>>
> >>> I'm going to proceed with moving the release into the distribution
> >>> repo now and work on release notes and other documentation tasks
> >>>
> >>> The -1 are recorded for the CLVM issue [1]. A fix for this issue is
> >> available and fixed in 4.2-forward branch and will be available for
> 4.2.1.
> >> If anyone needs the fix now they can cherry-pick from 4.2-forward
> >> with commitId f2c5b5fbfe45196dfad2821fca513ddd6efa25c9. This issue
> >> will be release noted.
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4618
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Animesh
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ron Wheeler
> >> President
> >> Artifact Software Inc
> >> email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
> >> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> >> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102

Re: Error blocking CS 4.1.1 build/run joy

[David Nalley]

>
> I've given my last best shot at building CS 4.1.1.
> At the end of the build I get an error and no joy.
> Now, it's time to ask for some help.
>

Hi Clay:

Is there a reason you are building on your own, or could you use the
prebuilt packages?

http://cloudstack.apt-get.eu/rhel/4.1/

--David

Re: Vmware vrouter

[Alexey Samarin]

Yes, this template can't be deploy as vm, but still don't understand why?
This is log of management-server.log http://pastebin.com/hqcHMBd0
Thanks!


2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 

> It's good question! No, but I will try...
> On Sep 11, 2013 5:49 PM, "Rafael Weingartner" 
> wrote:
>
>> have you tried to create a instance with this template?
>>
>>
>> 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
>>
>> > In kvm cluster i already have router.
>> > First was added kvm cluster and works perfectly. Now i added vmware
>> > cluster, but in vmware router can't start.
>> > Default template for vmware was successfully downloaded and have status
>> > "Ready".
>> >
>> >
>> > 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
>> >
>> > > have you tried to remove the VMware cluster and start the router?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
>> > >
>> > > > System VMs already started in KVM cluster :)
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
>> > > >
>> > > > > the system VMs started normally?
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > In vmware logs - nothing.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 2013/9/11 Rafael Weingartner 
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > could you check the hypervisor logs ?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 2013/9/11 Alexey Samarin 
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Dear all!
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > In my cs 4.1.1 with vmware cluster. Can't start virtual
>> router,
>> > > > can't
>> > > > > > > > understand why?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > This is log of management-server
>> http://pastebin.com/pbN0qG9w
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Please, if anyone have any idea - write me :)
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > CS 4.1.1 got from cloudstack.apt-get.eu (rpm)
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Thanks!
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Rafael Weingartner
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Rafael Weingartner
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Rafael Weingartner
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rafael Weingartner
>>
>

RE: Some network offerings missing after creating them

[Geoff Higginbottom]

Hi Nick,

Glad to hear you got it all sorted

Regards

Geoff Higginbottom

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

geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com

-Original Message-
From: Nick Burke [mailto:n...@nickburke.com]
Sent: 06 September 2013 07:49
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Some network offerings missing after creating them

Hi Geoff,

Mission successful! Thanks for all the help!


On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Geoff Higginbottom < 
geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com> wrote:

> Yes, just use CloudMonkey to create the networks, and then use it to
> deploy the VMs.
>
> CloudMonkey is a really cool tool, and once you master it, you will
> find you rarely use the GUI.
>
> We do large scale deployments and we only look at the GUI at the end,
> we do it all from Scripts.
>
> Regards
>
> Geoff Higginbottom
>
> D: +44 20 3603 0542 | S: +44 20 3603 0540 | M: +447968161581
>
> geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Nick Burke [mailto:n...@nickburke.com]
> Sent: 05 September 2013 12:35
> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Some network offerings missing after creating them
>
> Whoa. You mean it's not entirely my fault? :-)
>
> I should be able to use cloudmonkey to get around this bug, right?
>
> Thanks again for all your help!
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Geoff Higginbottom <
> geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry just looked at screen shot and you do appear to running an
> > advanced zone.
> >
> > There have been a few GUI bugs creep in with 4.1.1 in relation to
> > networking, this looks like another I have not seen reported so
> > please raise it as an issue.
> >
> > CloudMonkey provides an easier way to use the API so yes you can
> > just use CloudMonkey
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Geoff Higginbottom
> > CTO / Cloud Architect
> >
> >
> > D: +44 20 3603 0542 | S: +44 20 3603 0540 > +442036030540> | M: +447968161581
> >
> > geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com > .c
> > om>
> > | www.shapeblue.com
> >
> > ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5 Sep 2013, at 07:24, "Geoff Higginbottom" <
> > geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com > .c
> > om>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Nick,
> >
> > Are you using an Advanced or Basic Zone?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Geoff Higginbottom
> > CTO / Cloud Architect
> >
> >
> > D: +44 20 3603 0542 | S: +44 20 3603 0540 > +442036030540> | M: +447968161581
> >
> > geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com > .c
> > om
> > > | www.shapeblue.com<
> > http://www.shapeblue.com>
> >
> > ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5 Sep 2013, at 01:57, "Nick Burke"  > n...@nickburke.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Geoff,
> >
> > Thanks again for your reply and patience. I'm relieved to hear it's
> > possible with a little elbow grease!
> >
> > I have no problem starting again what-so-ever with anything. This is
> > preproduction. I've been doing regular 'drop database cloud's so
> > anything dangerous can easily be done.
> >
> > I think a large part of my problem is there is no "add guest network"
> > in Infrastructure / Zones / your-zone-name / Physical Network Tab /
> > your-network-name (the one with Guest Traffic) / Guest-Configure /
> > Network Tab. (See screen shot:  http://i.imgur.com/fOtttgD.png ).
> > There are no "right click" options either. I'm running version
> > 4.1.1, if there is some kind of version thing happening here.
> >
> >
> > Regarding API, can I use cloudmonkey or do I have to start doing
> > research into the API calls?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Geoff Higginbottom <
> > geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com > .c
> > om
> > >> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nick
> >
> > What you are trying to do is achievable, but you need to start
> > again, as once you have created a network which has taken its VLAN
> > from the Default Guest VLAN range you cannot change the network
> > Offering to one which has the 'Specify VLAN' option set.
> >
> > Fortunately you can create the new networks you need using the
> > correct Network Offerings, then use the 'addNicToVirtualMachine' and
> > 'removeNicFromVirtualMachine' API commands to add the new Networks
> > to the VM, and remove the old ones.
> >
> >
> >
> > I would create two network offerings, I'll call them 'External' and
> > 'Internal'
> >
> > 'External' should not have any 'Services' as it does not need them,
> > that way no VR will be created for this Network. Assign a 'Name'&
> > 'Description', and check the 'Specify VLAN' option as you want to
> > manually set the VLAN ID so it can connect to your external physical
> > Router.  You do not need the 'Persistent' feature as there will be no VR.
> >
> > 'Internal' should ha

Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)

[Ron Wheeler]

Travis,
You might want to add the issues/ideas to the JIRA so they don't get lost.
If anyone wants to comment on what I wrote in any of my JIRA issues, 
that could also be helpful since I am coming at this from a state of 
ignorance that is sometimes helpful but also a bit limiting in what I 
can propose as solutions.


Ron

On 11/09/2013 10:04 AM, Travis Graham wrote:

I'd be glad to jump in and help with this as well. I've taken notes on things 
that differ from the docs when we were setting up a few test environments and 
would love to help out to get the doc in shape in any way I can.

Travis

On Sep 11, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Ron Wheeler  wrote:


I would be happy to work with you on the issues that I raised and on the 
installation process in general.
I can set up a collaboration meeting if that suits you.

Ron


On 10/09/2013 7:46 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:

Ron

I am not too happy with the documentation side too and will put in time in next 
2-3 days to clear up whatever I can on documentation before the formal 
annoucement. This is a community effort and every help is appreciated.


Animesh


-Original Message-
From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 3:56 PM
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; d...@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)

I am very disappointed that 4.2 will be released without fixing
longstanding documentation problems.
There is no point is asking us to file JIRA issues if the developers are
not going to fix them.

The first impression for CloudStack is made in the installation docs. It is
makes the whole project look amateurish  when the installation does not
work.


Ron

On 10/09/2013 4:12 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:

The vote has *passed* with the following results (binding PMC votes

indicated with a "*" next to their name:

+1 : Edison*, Chiradeep*, Sebastien*, Prasanna*, Rajesh Batala, Ove
+Ewerlid
-1 : Marcus*, Chip*, Simon Weller

I'm going to proceed with moving the release into the distribution
repo now and work on release notes and other documentation tasks

The -1 are recorded for the CLVM issue [1]. A fix for this issue is

available and fixed in 4.2-forward branch and will be available for  4.2.1.
If anyone needs the fix now they can cherry-pick from 4.2-forward with
commitId f2c5b5fbfe45196dfad2821fca513ddd6efa25c9. This issue will be
release noted.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4618


Thanks
Animesh






--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102

Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS

[Rafael Weingartner]

I have never used iozone before,

How did you get that report?

I tried: iozone -s 1024m -t 1 -R

But the report was pretty different from yours.


2013/9/11 John Skinner 

> I currently have GlusterFS deployed into an 8 node KVM cluster running on
> CloudStack 4.1 for primary storage. Gluster is deployed on 28 1TB drives
> across 2 separate storage appliances using a distributed-replicated volume
> with the replica set to 2. The storage network is 10Gb copper.
>
> These are the options I have configured for the volume in Gluster, most of
> them are from a Red Hat document on configuring Red Hat Enterprise Storage
> for VM hosting:
>
>
>
> performance.io-thread-count: 32
> performance.cache-size: 1024MB
> performance.write-behind-window-size: 5MB
> performance.write-behind: on
> network.remote-dio: on
> cluster.eager-lock: enable
> performance.stat-prefetch: off
> performance.io-cache: on
> performance.read-ahead: on
> performance.quick-read: on
>
> Here are some of the numbers I was getting when benchmarking the storage
> from the KVM node directly (not a VM)
>
> The below table is in KB/s. The test is single stream 1GB file utilizing
> Direct I/O (no cache). I used iozone to run the benchmark.
>
> Write 4k45729
> Read 4k 10189
> Random Write 4k 31983
> Random Read 4k  9859
> Write 16k   182246
> Read 16k37146
> Random Write 16k113026
> Random Read 16k 37237
> Write 64k   420908
> Read 64k125315
> Random Write 64k383848
> Random Read 64k 125218
> Write 256k  567501
> Read 256k   218413
> Random Write 256k   508650
> Random Read 256k229117
>
> In the above results, I have the volume mounted to each KVM host as a FUSE
> glusterfs file system. They are added to CloudStack as a shared mount
> point. In the future it would be great to utilize GlusterFS qemu libvirt
> integration with libgfapi so I could bypass fuse altogether. However, that
> would require adding that code to CloudStack to support that.
>
> I maybe have 15 or so VMs running from the storage now and it is still
> pretty snappy. Need to do some more testing though and really get it loaded.
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Rafael Weingartner" 
> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:48:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS
>
> Right now I can think in three main reasons:
>
> The first reason, performance (I do not know Gluster and its performance
> and if the read and write speed are satisfactory). Please if you can make a
> test, post the results.
>
> Second consistency, I do not know Gluster, but swift that is also a
> Distributed File System is not consistency and they make it pretty clear on
> their page (http://docs.openstack.org/developer/swift/)
>
> "Swift is a highly available, distributed, eventually consistent
> object/blob store...".
>
> I would not accept to storage my VMs images on a FS that is eventually
> consistent.
>
> Third, network, I haven't used this kind of FS, but I can image that it
> uses a lot of bandwidth to keep synchronizing, managing and securing the
> data. So, managing the networking would be a pain.
>
>
>
> 2013/9/11 Olivier Mauras 
>
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Those thinking that it's not a good idea, do you mind
> > explaining your point of view?
> > GlusterFS seems like the only real
> > alternative to a highly priced SAN for the primary storage...
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Olivier
> >
> > On 2013-09-11 15:08, Rafael Weingartner wrote:
> >
> > > I
> > totally agree with Tomasz, I do not think that using a distributed FS
> > as
> > > primary storage is a good idea, but as a secondary it sounds
> > interesting.
> > >
> > > But, off course you can try *;*)
> > >
> > > 2013/9/11
> > Shanker Balan 
> > >
> > >> On 11-Sep-2013, at
> > 5:14 PM, Tomasz Zięba  wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi, Some
> > time ago I tried to use GlusterFS as storage for cloudstacka but I
> > noticed that cloudstack uses the default settings for mount command. By
> > default mount command is using the UDP protocol but glusterfs works
> > >>
> > only
> > >>
> > >>> using tcp. I think, if cloudstack developers could add "-o
> > proto=tcp" to code glusterfs should works. For example: /bin/mount -t
> > nfs -o proto=tcp IP:/share /mnt/gluster/ If you are using CitrixXen you
> > should mount the share and make it as SR. For cloudstacka is clear
> > because you should use the option PreSetup when creating PrimaryStorage.
> > Personally, I doubt that using GlusterFS as a primary storage is a good
> > solution but for secondary storage it should be very usefull.
> > >> And
> > maybe as a Swift backend. -- @shankerbalan M: +91 98860 60539 | O: +91
> > (80) 67935867 shanker.ba...@shapeblue.com [2] | www.shapeblue.com [3] |
> > Twitter:@shapeblue ShapeBlue Services India LLP, 22nd floor, Unit 2201A,
> > World Trade Centre, Bangalore - 560 055 This email and any attachments
> > to it may be confidential and are i

Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS

[John Skinner]

I ran each test independently for each block size. 

iozone -I -i 0 -i 1 -i 2 -r 4k -s 1G 

In order: -I to specify direct-IO, -i 0 to specify write/rewrite, -i 1 to 
specify read/re-read, -i 2 to specify random read/write, -r specify block size, 
-s to specify file size. 

The report is pretty thorough. What I put in the email was different, I just 
took the throughput from each test and put it into a table outside of the full 
report. 

- Original Message -

From: "Rafael Weingartner"  
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org 
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:16:23 PM 
Subject: Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS 

I have never used iozone before, 

How did you get that report? 

I tried: iozone -s 1024m -t 1 -R 

But the report was pretty different from yours. 


2013/9/11 John Skinner  

> I currently have GlusterFS deployed into an 8 node KVM cluster running on 
> CloudStack 4.1 for primary storage. Gluster is deployed on 28 1TB drives 
> across 2 separate storage appliances using a distributed-replicated volume 
> with the replica set to 2. The storage network is 10Gb copper. 
> 
> These are the options I have configured for the volume in Gluster, most of 
> them are from a Red Hat document on configuring Red Hat Enterprise Storage 
> for VM hosting: 
> 
> 
> 
> performance.io-thread-count: 32 
> performance.cache-size: 1024MB 
> performance.write-behind-window-size: 5MB 
> performance.write-behind: on 
> network.remote-dio: on 
> cluster.eager-lock: enable 
> performance.stat-prefetch: off 
> performance.io-cache: on 
> performance.read-ahead: on 
> performance.quick-read: on 
> 
> Here are some of the numbers I was getting when benchmarking the storage 
> from the KVM node directly (not a VM) 
> 
> The below table is in KB/s. The test is single stream 1GB file utilizing 
> Direct I/O (no cache). I used iozone to run the benchmark. 
> 
> Write 4k 45729 
> Read 4k 10189 
> Random Write 4k 31983 
> Random Read 4k 9859 
> Write 16k 182246 
> Read 16k 37146 
> Random Write 16k 113026 
> Random Read 16k 37237 
> Write 64k 420908 
> Read 64k 125315 
> Random Write 64k 383848 
> Random Read 64k 125218 
> Write 256k 567501 
> Read 256k 218413 
> Random Write 256k 508650 
> Random Read 256k 229117 
> 
> In the above results, I have the volume mounted to each KVM host as a FUSE 
> glusterfs file system. They are added to CloudStack as a shared mount 
> point. In the future it would be great to utilize GlusterFS qemu libvirt 
> integration with libgfapi so I could bypass fuse altogether. However, that 
> would require adding that code to CloudStack to support that. 
> 
> I maybe have 15 or so VMs running from the storage now and it is still 
> pretty snappy. Need to do some more testing though and really get it loaded. 
> 
> - Original Message -

> 
> From: "Rafael Weingartner"  
> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:48:07 AM 
> Subject: Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS 
> 
> Right now I can think in three main reasons: 
> 
> The first reason, performance (I do not know Gluster and its performance 
> and if the read and write speed are satisfactory). Please if you can make a 
> test, post the results. 
> 
> Second consistency, I do not know Gluster, but swift that is also a 
> Distributed File System is not consistency and they make it pretty clear on 
> their page (http://docs.openstack.org/developer/swift/) 
> 
> "Swift is a highly available, distributed, eventually consistent 
> object/blob store...". 
> 
> I would not accept to storage my VMs images on a FS that is eventually 
> consistent. 
> 
> Third, network, I haven't used this kind of FS, but I can image that it 
> uses a lot of bandwidth to keep synchronizing, managing and securing the 
> data. So, managing the networking would be a pain. 
> 
> 
> 
> 2013/9/11 Olivier Mauras  
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > Those thinking that it's not a good idea, do you mind 
> > explaining your point of view? 
> > GlusterFS seems like the only real 
> > alternative to a highly priced SAN for the primary storage... 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks, 
> > Olivier 
> > 
> > On 2013-09-11 15:08, Rafael Weingartner wrote: 
> > 
> > > I 
> > totally agree with Tomasz, I do not think that using a distributed FS 
> > as 
> > > primary storage is a good idea, but as a secondary it sounds 
> > interesting. 
> > > 
> > > But, off course you can try *;*) 
> > > 
> > > 2013/9/11 
> > Shanker Balan  
> > > 
> > >> On 11-Sep-2013, at 
> > 5:14 PM, Tomasz Zięba  wrote: 
> > >> 
> > >>> Hi, Some 
> > time ago I tried to use GlusterFS as storage for cloudstacka but I 
> > noticed that cloudstack uses the default settings for mount command. By 
> > default mount command is using the UDP protocol but glusterfs works 
> > >> 
> > only 
> > >> 
> > >>> using tcp. I think, if cloudstack developers could add "-o 
> > proto=tcp" to code glusterfs should works. For example: /bin/mount -t 
> > nfs -o proto=tcp IP:/share /mnt/gluster/ If you are using CitrixX

Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS

[Rafael Weingartner]

cool, thanks.



2013/9/11 John Skinner 

> I ran each test independently for each block size.
>
> iozone -I -i 0 -i 1 -i 2 -r 4k -s 1G
>
> In order: -I to specify direct-IO, -i 0 to specify write/rewrite, -i 1 to
> specify read/re-read, -i 2 to specify random read/write, -r specify block
> size, -s to specify file size.
>
> The report is pretty thorough. What I put in the email was different, I
> just took the throughput from each test and put it into a table outside of
> the full report.
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Rafael Weingartner" 
> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:16:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS
>
> I have never used iozone before,
>
> How did you get that report?
>
> I tried: iozone -s 1024m -t 1 -R
>
> But the report was pretty different from yours.
>
>
> 2013/9/11 John Skinner 
>
> > I currently have GlusterFS deployed into an 8 node KVM cluster running on
> > CloudStack 4.1 for primary storage. Gluster is deployed on 28 1TB drives
> > across 2 separate storage appliances using a distributed-replicated
> volume
> > with the replica set to 2. The storage network is 10Gb copper.
> >
> > These are the options I have configured for the volume in Gluster, most
> of
> > them are from a Red Hat document on configuring Red Hat Enterprise
> Storage
> > for VM hosting:
> >
> >
> >
> > performance.io-thread-count: 32
> > performance.cache-size: 1024MB
> > performance.write-behind-window-size: 5MB
> > performance.write-behind: on
> > network.remote-dio: on
> > cluster.eager-lock: enable
> > performance.stat-prefetch: off
> > performance.io-cache: on
> > performance.read-ahead: on
> > performance.quick-read: on
> >
> > Here are some of the numbers I was getting when benchmarking the storage
> > from the KVM node directly (not a VM)
> >
> > The below table is in KB/s. The test is single stream 1GB file utilizing
> > Direct I/O (no cache). I used iozone to run the benchmark.
> >
> > Write 4k 45729
> > Read 4k 10189
> > Random Write 4k 31983
> > Random Read 4k 9859
> > Write 16k 182246
> > Read 16k 37146
> > Random Write 16k 113026
> > Random Read 16k 37237
> > Write 64k 420908
> > Read 64k 125315
> > Random Write 64k 383848
> > Random Read 64k 125218
> > Write 256k 567501
> > Read 256k 218413
> > Random Write 256k 508650
> > Random Read 256k 229117
> >
> > In the above results, I have the volume mounted to each KVM host as a
> FUSE
> > glusterfs file system. They are added to CloudStack as a shared mount
> > point. In the future it would be great to utilize GlusterFS qemu libvirt
> > integration with libgfapi so I could bypass fuse altogether. However,
> that
> > would require adding that code to CloudStack to support that.
> >
> > I maybe have 15 or so VMs running from the storage now and it is still
> > pretty snappy. Need to do some more testing though and really get it
> loaded.
> >
> > - Original Message -
>
> >
> > From: "Rafael Weingartner" 
> > To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:48:07 AM
> > Subject: Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS
> >
> > Right now I can think in three main reasons:
> >
> > The first reason, performance (I do not know Gluster and its performance
> > and if the read and write speed are satisfactory). Please if you can
> make a
> > test, post the results.
> >
> > Second consistency, I do not know Gluster, but swift that is also a
> > Distributed File System is not consistency and they make it pretty clear
> on
> > their page (http://docs.openstack.org/developer/swift/)
> >
> > "Swift is a highly available, distributed, eventually consistent
> > object/blob store...".
> >
> > I would not accept to storage my VMs images on a FS that is eventually
> > consistent.
> >
> > Third, network, I haven't used this kind of FS, but I can image that it
> > uses a lot of bandwidth to keep synchronizing, managing and securing the
> > data. So, managing the networking would be a pain.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/9/11 Olivier Mauras 
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Those thinking that it's not a good idea, do you mind
> > > explaining your point of view?
> > > GlusterFS seems like the only real
> > > alternative to a highly priced SAN for the primary storage...
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Olivier
> > >
> > > On 2013-09-11 15:08, Rafael Weingartner wrote:
> > >
> > > > I
> > > totally agree with Tomasz, I do not think that using a distributed FS
> > > as
> > > > primary storage is a good idea, but as a secondary it sounds
> > > interesting.
> > > >
> > > > But, off course you can try *;*)
> > > >
> > > > 2013/9/11
> > > Shanker Balan 
> > > >
> > > >> On 11-Sep-2013, at
> > > 5:14 PM, Tomasz Zięba  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi, Some
> > > time ago I tried to use GlusterFS as storage for cloudstacka but I
> > > noticed that cloudstack uses the default settings for mount command. By
> > > default mount command is using the UDP protocol but glusterfs works
> > > >>
> > > only
> > > >>

RE: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)

[Animesh Chaturvedi]

I have set up a GTM with Ron tomorrow 10 AM PST. Anyone else interested is 
welcome to join, GTM details are provided below



1.  Please join my meeting.
https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/725491376

2.  Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended.  Or, 
call in using your telephone.

United States: +1 (224) 649-0001
United States (toll-free): 1 877 309 2073

Access Code: 725-491-376
Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting

Meeting ID: 725-491-376

GoToMeeting(r) 
Online Meetings Made Easy(r)

Not at your computer? Click the link to join this meeting from your iPhone(r), 
iPad(r) or Android(r) device via the GoToMeeting app.


Thanks
Animesh

> -Original Message-
> From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 5:32 AM
> To: Animesh Chaturvedi
> Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org; d...@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth
> round)
> 
> I would be happy to work with you on the issues that I raised and on the
> installation process in general.
> I can set up a collaboration meeting if that suits you.
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> On 10/09/2013 7:46 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> > Ron
> >
> > I am not too happy with the documentation side too and will put in
> time in next 2-3 days to clear up whatever I can on documentation before
> the formal annoucement. This is a community effort and every help is
> appreciated.
> >
> >
> > Animesh
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 3:56 PM
> >> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; d...@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth
> >> round)
> >>
> >> I am very disappointed that 4.2 will be released without fixing
> >> longstanding documentation problems.
> >> There is no point is asking us to file JIRA issues if the developers
> >> are not going to fix them.
> >>
> >> The first impression for CloudStack is made in the installation docs.
> >> It is makes the whole project look amateurish  when the installation
> >> does not work.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> >> On 10/09/2013 4:12 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> >>> The vote has *passed* with the following results (binding PMC votes
> >> indicated with a "*" next to their name:
> >>> +1 : Edison*, Chiradeep*, Sebastien*, Prasanna*, Rajesh Batala, Ove
> >>> +Ewerlid
> >>> -1 : Marcus*, Chip*, Simon Weller
> >>>
> >>> I'm going to proceed with moving the release into the distribution
> >>> repo now and work on release notes and other documentation tasks
> >>>
> >>> The -1 are recorded for the CLVM issue [1]. A fix for this issue is
> >> available and fixed in 4.2-forward branch and will be available for
> 4.2.1.
> >> If anyone needs the fix now they can cherry-pick from 4.2-forward
> >> with commitId f2c5b5fbfe45196dfad2821fca513ddd6efa25c9. This issue
> >> will be release noted.
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4618
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Animesh
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ron Wheeler
> >> President
> >> Artifact Software Inc
> >> email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
> >> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> >> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102

Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)

[Dean Kamali]

alright, I will tune in, and see if I can help with anything :)


On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <
animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote:

>
> I have set up a GTM with Ron tomorrow 10 AM PST. Anyone else interested is
> welcome to join, GTM details are provided below
>
>
>
> 1.  Please join my meeting.
> https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/725491376
>
> 2.  Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended.
>  Or, call in using your telephone.
>
> United States: +1 (224) 649-0001
> United States (toll-free): 1 877 309 2073
>
> Access Code: 725-491-376
> Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting
>
> Meeting ID: 725-491-376
>
> GoToMeeting(r)
> Online Meetings Made Easy(r)
>
> Not at your computer? Click the link to join this meeting from your
> iPhone(r), iPad(r) or Android(r) device via the GoToMeeting app.
>
>
> Thanks
> Animesh
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 5:32 AM
> > To: Animesh Chaturvedi
> > Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org; d...@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth
> > round)
> >
> > I would be happy to work with you on the issues that I raised and on the
> > installation process in general.
> > I can set up a collaboration meeting if that suits you.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > On 10/09/2013 7:46 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> > > Ron
> > >
> > > I am not too happy with the documentation side too and will put in
> > time in next 2-3 days to clear up whatever I can on documentation before
> > the formal annoucement. This is a community effort and every help is
> > appreciated.
> > >
> > >
> > > Animesh
> > >
> > >> -Original Message-
> > >> From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 3:56 PM
> > >> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; d...@cloudstack.apache.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth
> > >> round)
> > >>
> > >> I am very disappointed that 4.2 will be released without fixing
> > >> longstanding documentation problems.
> > >> There is no point is asking us to file JIRA issues if the developers
> > >> are not going to fix them.
> > >>
> > >> The first impression for CloudStack is made in the installation docs.
> > >> It is makes the whole project look amateurish  when the installation
> > >> does not work.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Ron
> > >>
> > >> On 10/09/2013 4:12 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> > >>> The vote has *passed* with the following results (binding PMC votes
> > >> indicated with a "*" next to their name:
> > >>> +1 : Edison*, Chiradeep*, Sebastien*, Prasanna*, Rajesh Batala, Ove
> > >>> +Ewerlid
> > >>> -1 : Marcus*, Chip*, Simon Weller
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm going to proceed with moving the release into the distribution
> > >>> repo now and work on release notes and other documentation tasks
> > >>>
> > >>> The -1 are recorded for the CLVM issue [1]. A fix for this issue is
> > >> available and fixed in 4.2-forward branch and will be available for
> > 4.2.1.
> > >> If anyone needs the fix now they can cherry-pick from 4.2-forward
> > >> with commitId f2c5b5fbfe45196dfad2821fca513ddd6efa25c9. This issue
> > >> will be release noted.
> > >>>
> > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4618
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks
> > >>> Animesh
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Ron Wheeler
> > >> President
> > >> Artifact Software Inc
> > >> email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
> > >> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > >> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ron Wheeler
> > President
> > Artifact Software Inc
> > email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
> > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
>

Re: Cloustack 4.1.0 + GlusterFS

[Olivier Mauras]

 

It's always interesting seeing people advising against a solution
without actually having it tested :)

Thanks John for sharing your
results.
I guess that you're using XFS as the underlying FS ? Your
write-behind options, clearly show a performance improvement for write
speed.
Have you tried with VM cache enabled? What about read
performances?

I also hope that qemu native integration will be soon
supported in Cloudstack, performances are definitely boosted :)

BTW are
you happy with the cloudstack KVM integration? Seems, reading this list,
that there's some "needed" features that doesn't work very well with KVM
- HA, VM snapshots,...

Cheers,
Olivier

On 2013-09-11 16:38, John
Skinner wrote: 

> I currently have GlusterFS deployed into an 8 node
KVM cluster running on CloudStack 4.1 for primary storage. Gluster is
deployed on 28 1TB drives across 2 separate storage appliances using a
distributed-replicated volume with the replica set to 2. The storage
network is 10Gb copper. 
> 
> These are the options I have configured
for the volume in Gluster, most of them are from a Red Hat document on
configuring Red Hat Enterprise Storage for VM hosting: 
> 
>
performance.io-thread-count: 32 
> performance.cache-size: 1024MB 
>
performance.write-behind-window-size: 5MB 
> performance.write-behind:
on 
> network.remote-dio: on 
> cluster.eager-lock: enable 
>
performance.stat-prefetch: off 
> performance.io-cache: on 
>
performance.read-ahead: on 
> performance.quick-read: on 
> 
> Here are
some of the numbers I was getting when benchmarking the storage from the
KVM node directly (not a VM) 
> 
> The below table is in KB/s. The test
is single stream 1GB file utilizing Direct I/O (no cache). I used iozone
to run the benchmark. 
> 
> Write 4k 45729 
> Read 4k 10189 
> Random
Write 4k 31983 
> Random Read 4k 9859 
> Write 16k 182246 
> Read 16k
37146 
> Random Write 16k 113026 
> Random Read 16k 37237 
> Write 64k
420908 
> Read 64k 125315 
> Random Write 64k 383848 
> Random Read 64k
125218 
> Write 256k 567501 
> Read 256k 218413 
> Random Write 256k
508650 
> Random Read 256k 229117 
> 
> In the above results, I have the
volume mounted to each KVM host as a FUSE glusterfs file system. They
are added to CloudStack as a shared mount point. In the future it would
be great to utilize GlusterFS qemu libvirt integration with libgfapi so
I could bypass fuse altogether. However, that would require adding that
code to CloudStack to support that. 
> 
> I maybe have 15 or so VMs
running from the storage now and it is still pretty snappy. Need to do
some more testing though and really get it loaded. 
> 
> - Original
Message -
> 
> From: "Rafael Weingartner"
 
> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org 
>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:48:07 AM 
> Subject: Re: Cloustack
4.1.0 + GlusterFS 
> 
> Right now I can think in three main reasons: 
>

> The first reason, performance (I do not know Gluster and its
performance 
> and if the read and write speed are satisfactory). Please
if you can make a 
> test, post the results. 
> 
> Second consistency, I
do not know Gluster, but swift that is also a 
> Distributed File System
is not consistency and they make it pretty clear on 
> their page
(http://docs.openstack.org/developer/swift/) 
> 
> "Swift is a highly
available, distributed, eventually consistent 
> object/blob store...".

> 
> I would not accept to storage my VMs images on a FS that is
eventually 
> consistent. 
> 
> Third, network, I haven't used this kind
of FS, but I can image that it 
> uses a lot of bandwidth to keep
synchronizing, managing and securing the 
> data. So, managing the
networking would be a pain. 
> 
> 2013/9/11 Olivier Mauras

> 
>> Hi, Those thinking that it's not a good
idea, do you mind explaining your point of view? GlusterFS seems like
the only real alternative to a highly priced SAN for the primary
storage... Thanks, Olivier On 2013-09-11 15:08, Rafael Weingartner
wrote: 
>> 
>>> I
>> totally agree with Tomasz, I do not think that
using a distributed FS as 
>> 
>>> primary storage is a good idea, but
as a secondary it sounds
>> interesting. And maybe as a Swift backend.
-- @shankerbalan M: +91 98860 60539 | O: +91 (80) 67935867
shanker.ba...@shapeblue.com [1] [2] | www.shapeblue.com [2][3] |
Twitter:@shapeblue ShapeBlue Services India LLP, 22nd floor, Unit 2201A,
World Trade Centre, Bangalore - 560 055 This email and any attachments
to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the
indivi
>> 
>>> sarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related
companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must
neit
>> 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 operated under license from Shape Blue
Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark. -- Rafael Weingartner Links:
-- [1

Security Groups

[Michael Phillips]

So If I have created a zone with the 
"DefaultSharedNetworkOfferingWithSGService" network offerring. Created a VM 
using the default security group, which has 0 ingress rules, I should NOT be 
able to do things like PING that VM correct?

RE: Security Groups

[Sanjeev Neelarapu]

Correct. By default all the ingress traffic is blocked and the egress traffic 
is allowed.

-Sanjeev

-Original Message-
From: Michael Phillips [mailto:mphilli7...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:46 AM
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Security Groups

So If I have created a zone with the 
"DefaultSharedNetworkOfferingWithSGService" network offerring. Created a VM 
using the default security group, which has 0 ingress rules, I should NOT be 
able to do things like PING that VM correct?

Re: Security Groups

[Jayapal Reddy Uradi]

You are right.

Thanks,
Jayapal

On 12-Sep-2013, at 11:45 AM, Michael Phillips  wrote:

> So If I have created a zone with the 
> "DefaultSharedNetworkOfferingWithSGService" network offerring. Created a VM 
> using the default security group, which has 0 ingress rules, I should NOT be 
> able to do things like PING that VM correct?  
>