Re: LTS release or not

[ilya]

Hi Rene


In short BIG +1, for longer summary, please read below


PS: For LTS - you mean "Long Term Support" i assume.

We would be interested in seeing the support of 4.5 longer as well, as
we are happy with what we got so far and dont have a burning need to
upgrade yet.

Upgrade would also require serious testing across the board, so LTS
release can buy us more time.

This is my opinion, Marcus would probably have a different opinion on this.

-

Side note:
I had a somewhat similar endeavor few years back that attempted to solve
this challenge. Though it was not just around "Long Term Support", but
geared more towards "I need latest bug fix and feature now, I dont have
8+ months to wait".

I called the project CloudSand.

Back then, i was mostly focusing on ACS + VMware Integration, as the
code existed in master branch but not in 4.1. Also did a small talk
about it back in 2013 @ CCC in SF Bay area.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wuEPoxVlBM

You can see it under www.cloudsand.com  - though now no longer
maintained due to $dayjob$ restrictions (its complicated).

Either way, i'm in strong support of this initiative. I'm thinking just
about anyone with fairly sized infrastructure - might do the same, why
not merge the efforts?

Things to consider (this is strictly my opinion):
1) Pull/merge requests must be reviewed with scrutiny, we dont want LTS
to be a test bed, but rather a stable build
2) Database changes should be avoided unless someone wants to maintain
upgrade path, i just think it would be easier to just not pull commits
that require DB change
3) End user should be able to upgrade to latest official ACS version
without any issues or switch between - there should be no lock in..

I'd like to help with this effort, but don't know how much time i can
dedicate to this effort.

Regards,
ilya



On 1/9/16 2:51 PM, Rene Moser wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I recently started a discussion about the current release process. You
> may have noticed that CloudStack had a few releases in the last 2 months.
> 
> My concerns were that many CloudStack users will be confused about these
> many releases (which one to take? Are fixes backported? How long will it
> receive fixes? Do I have to upgrade?).
> 
> We leads me to the question: Does CloudStack need an LTS version? To me
> it would make sense in many ways:
> 
> * Users in restrictive cloud environments can choose LTS for getting
> backwards compatible bug fixes only.
> 
> * Users in agile cloud environments can choose latest stable and getting
> new features fast.
> 
> * CloudStack developers must only maintain the latest stable (mainline)
> and the LTS version.
> 
> * CloudStack developers and mainline users can accept, that mainline may
> break environments but will receive fast forward fixes.
> 
> To me this would make a lot of sense. I am actually thinking about
> maintaining 4.5 as a LTS by myself.
> 
> Any thoughts? +1/-1?
> 
> Regards
> René
> 

Re: CloudStack4.2.1 dnsmasq service down on VR

[Makrand]

Ryota,

I've observed many issue with VR (CS 4.3), especially when they are running
for long time and handle considerable amount of traffic (more number of
VMs). Sometimes you will have /var full and sometimes VRs just don't hand
out any IPs to newly created VMs. Doing (clean) network restart works for
90% of networks issues. I believe newer versions of CS have much better
templates for VR and less issues.

Was there much activity happening on your VR when dnsmsq service stopped?

Makrand

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:32 AM, 丸子良太 / MARUKO，RYOUTA <
ryota.maruko...@hitachi-solutions.com> wrote:

> Dear Dag,
>
> Thank you for your answer.
>
> I checked the VR log(/var/log/kern.log).
> It shows that the VR had been out of memory,
> and OOMKiller on VR occurred to stop apache2 & dnsmasq service.
>
> Do you have a such experience(out of memory on the VR)?
>
> Regards
>
> **
> Ryota Maruko
> Hitachi Solusions East Japan,Ltd.
> HPC Group
> PHS：070-6954-1466  FAX:022-266-2247
> mailto:ryota.maruko...@hitachi-solutions.com
> **
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Dag Sonstebo [mailto:dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 6:27 PM
> >To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> >Subject: [!]Re: CloudStack4.2.1 dnsmasq service down on VR
> >
> >Hi Ryouta,
> >
> >there shouldn’t be any requirements for restarting VRs on a regular
> basis, but obviously do it (or restart network with
> >cleanup) when you hit problems.
> >
> >Having your VR up for a year is not bad going, and there could obviously
> be a number of root causes for the dnsmasq service
> >stopping. Also keep in mind 4.2 is a few years old now, and any issues or
> bugs will most likely be fixed in later releases.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Dag Sonstebo
> >Cloud Architect
> >ShapeBlue
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >ShapeBlue Dag Sonstebo
> >ShapeBlue
> >d:   | s: +44 203 603 0540 
> >e:  dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com | t:   dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com%20|%20t:>|  w:
> >www.shapeblue.com 
> >a:  53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK
> >
> >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.
> >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.
> >
> >
> >
> >On 07/01/2016, 06:07, "丸子良太 / MARUKO，RYOUTA" <
> ryota.maruko...@hitachi-solutions.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Hello.
> >>
> >>Please tearch me about the problem.
> >>
> >>I made 2 VMs(VM1/VM2) one year ago.
> >>A few days ago, I tried to ping from VM1 to VM2.
> >>But it was unrearchable, previously it was no problem.
> >>
> >>"# ping VM2.domainXXX" (.domainXXX is the guestnetwork setting domain)
> >>
> >>I checked up the VR log, So "dnsmasq" service on VR was down.
> >>I don't know why the service was down.
> >>Will it be better that I periodically restart VR?
> >>
> >>~~
> >>CloudStack 4.2.1
> >>XenServer 6.1.0
> >>~~
> >>
> >>Regard.
> >>
> >
> >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 
> >CloudStack Consulting   |
> CloudStack Software Engineering
> >
> >CloudStack Infrastructure Support <
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>  | CloudStack
> Bootcamp
> >Training Courses 
>
>


-- 
Best,
Makrand

RE: CloudStack4.2.1 dnsmasq service down on VR

[丸子良太 / MARUKO，RYOUTA]

Dear Dag,

Thank you for your answer.

I checked the VR log(/var/log/kern.log).
It shows that the VR had been out of memory,
and OOMKiller on VR occurred to stop apache2 & dnsmasq service.

Do you have a such experience(out of memory on the VR)?

Regards

**
Ryota Maruko
Hitachi Solusions East Japan,Ltd.
HPC Group
PHS：070-6954-1466  FAX:022-266-2247
mailto:ryota.maruko...@hitachi-solutions.com
**

>-Original Message-
>From: Dag Sonstebo [mailto:dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 6:27 PM
>To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
>Subject: [!]Re: CloudStack4.2.1 dnsmasq service down on VR
>
>Hi Ryouta,
>
>there shouldn’t be any requirements for restarting VRs on a regular basis, but 
>obviously do it (or restart network with
>cleanup) when you hit problems.
>
>Having your VR up for a year is not bad going, and there could obviously be a 
>number of root causes for the dnsmasq service
>stopping. Also keep in mind 4.2 is a few years old now, and any issues or bugs 
>will most likely be fixed in later releases.
>
>Regards,
>
>Dag Sonstebo
>Cloud Architect
>ShapeBlue
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>ShapeBlue Dag Sonstebo
>ShapeBlue
>d:   | s: +44 203 603 0540 
>e:  dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com | t:  
>|  w:
>www.shapeblue.com 
>a:  53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK
>
>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.
>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.
>
>
>
>On 07/01/2016, 06:07, "丸子良太 / MARUKO，RYOUTA" 
> wrote:
>
>>Hello.
>>
>>Please tearch me about the problem.
>>
>>I made 2 VMs(VM1/VM2) one year ago.
>>A few days ago, I tried to ping from VM1 to VM2.
>>But it was unrearchable, previously it was no problem.
>>
>>"# ping VM2.domainXXX" (.domainXXX is the guestnetwork setting domain)
>>
>>I checked up the VR log, So "dnsmasq" service on VR was down.
>>I don't know why the service was down.
>>Will it be better that I periodically restart VR?
>>
>>~~
>>CloudStack 4.2.1
>>XenServer 6.1.0
>>~~
>>
>>Regard.
>>
>
>Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services:
>IaaS Cloud Design & Build  
> | CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment
>framework 
>CloudStack Consulting   | 
>CloudStack Software Engineering
>
>CloudStack Infrastructure Support 
>  | CloudStack 
>Bootcamp
>Training Courses 

Re: Summary: -1 LTS

[Frank Louwers]

All,

I am +1 on TLS: We have a custom branch of CloudStack, with a few custom 
patches. Some of which make sense for everyone, and we’ve committed them back, 
or plan to do so, but most of them only work for our specific case, or “cur 
corners” by dropping features we don’t need.

An LTS branch would allow us to keep our patches “good” against LTS. Our 
current tree is based on 4.5. I’d need to perform some manual patchwork to make 
them apply against 4.6, let alone 4.7. Having an LTS would mean I’d only have 
to do this every few years...

I know this might sound selfish. But I assume I am not the only one in this 
case…

Regards,

Frank


> On 11 Jan 2016, at 16:18, Daan Hoogland  wrote:
> 
> (rant alert) I have been stating this in the discuss thread and I don't
> agree with your conclusion; with our new workflow any release is a LTS as
> long as we maintain the discipline of allowing only bugfixes on the release
> they first appeared in (or 4.6 as a start point) If we maintain that
> discipline during review any release henceforth is an LTS. Of course people
> can pay others to backport outside the Apache CloudStack project if they
> want, as well. but the notion that we don't have an LTS at the moment
> hurts. (end of rant)
> 
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Rene Moser  wrote:
> 
>> LTS by the community is not an option for now:
>> 
>> Most of the threads/users/devs had concerns or are skeptical how it can
>> be done in practice.
>> 
>> As we recently changed the release process, it seems to "early" to
>> change it again or add new processes to it.
>> 
>> I still think CloudStack need some kind of LTS to serve business needs
>> but unsure if _we_ as community should do it.
>> 
>> Thanks for participating.
>> 
>> Regards
>> René
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daan

Re: Summary: -1 LTS

[Daan Hoogland]

(rant alert) I have been stating this in the discuss thread and I don't
agree with your conclusion; with our new workflow any release is a LTS as
long as we maintain the discipline of allowing only bugfixes on the release
they first appeared in (or 4.6 as a start point) If we maintain that
discipline during review any release henceforth is an LTS. Of course people
can pay others to backport outside the Apache CloudStack project if they
want, as well. but the notion that we don't have an LTS at the moment
hurts. (end of rant)

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Rene Moser  wrote:

> LTS by the community is not an option for now:
>
> Most of the threads/users/devs had concerns or are skeptical how it can
> be done in practice.
>
> As we recently changed the release process, it seems to "early" to
> change it again or add new processes to it.
>
> I still think CloudStack need some kind of LTS to serve business needs
> but unsure if _we_ as community should do it.
>
> Thanks for participating.
>
> Regards
> René
>
>
>
>


-- 
Daan