PKIX path building failed

[Jagdish Patil]

Hey Guys,

I am facing the following issue with this configuration:

*Configuration:*
CloudStack Version: 4.9
OS: CentOS 6.8(X86_64)
Hypervisor: KVM
CIDR:24

*Issue:*

*Failed to register template: 4fe0b968-e02a-11e7-939c-f8a9632f48e1 with
error: sun.security.validator.ValidatorException: PKIX path building
failed: sun.security.provider.certpath.SunCertPathBuilderException: unable
to find valid certification path to requested target*

There are solutions given by multiple peoples on the internet but none of
them are helping me. Please help.

Thank You,
Jagdish Patil,
(B.Tech-Cloud Based Application: IBM)
M:8735828606 <087358%2028606>
E:jagdishpatil...@gmail.com

CloudStack-UI / Release 1.410.16 Overview

[Ivan Kudryavtsev]

Hello, community members, this is release announce for CloudStack-UI -
alternative UI for Apache CloudStack.
If you don't see a properly marked document and would like to see the same
press release with images, follow the link:
EN: https://github.com/bwsw/cloudstack-ui/wiki/1.410.16-ReleaseNotes-En
RU: https://github.com/bwsw/cloudstack-ui/wiki/1.410.16-ReleaseNotes-Ru

Release 1.410.16 Overview

On December 12, 2017, CloudStack-UI version 1.410.16 was released. This
release contains significant functional changes, its detailed description
is provided below.
Template/ISO
agreement in VM creation

An important improvement presented in the current release is the ability to
specify an agreement for template or ISO that user must confirm to continue
VM installation from a chosen source. An agreement may specify, for
example, software licensing terms or restrictions on the liability of the
software template vendor.

Template/ISO
groups management

This release introduces a new feature that allows user grouping templates
and ISO into logical groups that are defined in the configuration file.
Logical groups make working with installation sources more convenient,
provide a quickly navigation among available templates and ISOs.

User
management for domain administrators

Now it is possible to manage additional users in Accounts section. A
"Users" tab in Account sidebar contains a full information about existing
users. Domain administrators can also edit user’s data here and create new
users.

Security
groups details sidebar

A detailed information of security groups is available in a sidebar. Users
can access details of each group as well as a list of virtual machines
using this group if it is shared. It is also possible to go into the
details of each VM.

Improved
view mode of security group rules

We added the ability to group security rules by type and protocols in a
view mode. This improvement is useful for users who have the large number
of rules of a particular machine.

Switching
the development environment to CloudStack 4.10.0.

In this release the team switched to Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0. The
following releases will have 1.410.X enumeration and will be tested for
compatibility only with the latest version of Apache CloudStack 4.10.X.
Deployment
instructions

The release can be found at GitHub releases:
https://github.com/bwsw/cloudstack-ui/releases/tag/1.410.16.

Prepared Docker image is available at Dockerhub:
https://hub.docker.com/r/bwsw/cloudstack-ui/.

You can pull it with:

# docker pull bwsw/cloudstack-ui:1.410.16

The project changelog is here:
https://github.com/bwsw/cloudstack-ui/wiki/Changelog.

Deployment guide and project info can be found at GitHub pages:
https://bwsw.github.io/cloudstack-ui/.
Release
1.410.17 expectations

Key features of the next release: The API log when there is an error
creating a virtual machine for contacting technical support. Improved
components for selecting a disk and computational sentence in the virtual
machine creation dialog.
Community
message

Dear community member, we will be thankful if you

   - try the project and provide us with a feedback;
   - share the information about the project and the release in social
   media;
   - mark the GitHub repository  with
   star to support the project;
   - join LinkedIn group .


-- 
With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev
Bitworks Software, Ltd.
Cell: +7-923-414-1515
WWW: http://bitworks.software/ 

RE: Call for participation: Issue triaging and PR review/testing

[Paul Angus]

That really depends on what the tests that you are think of are.

Marvin covers a range of tests relating to logical but mostly physical 
functions, like network creation and the functions that CloudStack can 
orchestrate within those networks, VM lifecycle as well as storage functions.
The only thing that Marvin can’t really check is the UI.

It’s downside is that the tests are written in Python, so non-developers will 
struggle to create them.

Rene’s use of ansible will provide an alternate framework to setup a scenario 
and ensure that everything behaves as expected, which non-developers could work 
with (personnally I’m pretty excited about that).


Kind regards,

Paul Angus


paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 

From: Luis [mailto:lmartinez...@yahoo.com]
Sent: 14 December 2017 19:15
To: Paul Angus ; users@cloudstack.apache.org; Ivan 
Kudryavtsev 
Cc: dev 
Subject: RE: Call for participation: Issue triaging and PR review/testing

Manual testing, not sure if automated test could do an entire test
Sent from Yahoo Mail on 
Android

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Paul Angus
> wrote:
Hi Luis,

Can you explain what you mean please?  Do you mean people writing automated 
tests or manual testing of discrete features?



Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue



-Original Message-
From: Luis 
[mailto:lmartinez...@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Sent: 14 December 2017 02:04
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; Ivan 
Kudryavtsev >; 
users@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: dev >
Subject: Re: Call for participation: Issue triaging and PR review/testing

Hi
What about creating a team for testing and create a check list of what to test 
and how. Besides the people that uses CS. This may increase the quality.
Just an idea.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

  On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Ivan 
Kudryavtsev> wrote:  
Hi, Paul. Thank you for your response. I just still feel that it's a very
risky approach to deliver a new release if community haven't adopted and tried 
a previous one because future unidentified regressions are multiplied to 
currently unidentified regressions. But, I see it's a trade and controversity 
here.

2017-12-13 21:46 GMT+07:00 Paul Angus 
>:

> Thanks Rene.
>
> @Ivan, I understand your concerns. But if 4.10 is unusable, then it
> will never get much production testing.
> The longer between releases, the harder testing and triage becomes.
>
> By putting a line in the sand for 4.11 and 4.12, and with the desire
>to  keep making every release better than the last we can keep moving forward.
>  I think we're all largely in agreement that the process around 4.10
>was  sub-optimal, which is why we've set out clear guidelines that we'd
>like to  work to.
>
> You are correct that there is more to quality than just Marvin tests
> (or at least the current ones), and long term, if community members
> like yourselves and Rene, come up with tests/test structures that push
> the boundaries of CloudStack, then automated testing will only get better.
>
> For now though, I would suggest that the best way to galvanise the
> community around the manual testing of CloudStack is to have a release
> candidate that everyone can coalesce around.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul Angus
>
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rene Moser [mailto:m...@renemoser.net]
> Sent: 13 December 2017 12:56
> To: dev >; 
> users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Call for participation: Issue triaging and PR review/testing
>
> Hi all
>
> On 12/13/2017 05:04 AM, Ivan Kudryavtsev wrote:
> > Hello, devs, users, Rohit. Have a good day.
> >
> > Rohit, you intend to freeze 4.11 on 8 january and, frankly speaking, I
> > see risks here. A major risk is that 4.10 is too buggy and it seems
> > nobody uses it actually right now in production because it's unusable,
> > unfortunately, so we are planning to freeze 4.11 which stands on
> > untested 4.10 with a lot of lacks still undiscovered and not 

Re: Call for participation: Issue triaging and PR review/testing

[Ron Wheeler]

Are there scripts for manual testing?

If there are scripts, these could certainly be done by 
non-developers/sysadmins as long as they have a test bed to use.


The scripts certainly would be a "good thing" to have for acceptance 
testing for anyone planning to put Cloudstack onto production for 
themselves or a client.


What is the minimal hardware configuration required to test the UI and 
user level functionality?
Do we have instructions to create a minimal test station? Is it more 
than two old desktops and a hub?
Need additional hardware to test specific routers and networks but 
shouldn't organizations wanting to put a new version into prosuction 
already have test/spare equipment.


What are the key UI/system features that are best tested by humans with 
a script
 - Clearly documentation and installation instructions are high on this 
list.


Ron

On 14/12/2017 2:15 PM, Luis wrote:

Manual testing, not sure if automated test could do an entire test

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
  
   On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Paul Angus wrote:   Hi Luis,


Can you explain what you mean please?  Do you mean people writing automated 
tests or manual testing of discrete features?



Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
   
  



-Original Message-
From: Luis [mailto:lmartinez...@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Sent: 14 December 2017 02:04
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; Ivan Kudryavtsev ; 
users@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: dev 
Subject: Re: Call for participation: Issue triaging and PR review/testing

Hi
What about creating a team for testing and create a check list of what to test 
and how. Besides the people that uses CS. This may increase the quality.
Just an idea.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
  
   On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Ivan Kudryavtsev wrote:  Hi, Paul. Thank you for your response. I just still feel that it's a very

risky approach to deliver a new release if community haven't adopted and tried 
a previous one because future unidentified regressions are multiplied to 
currently unidentified regressions. But, I see it's a trade and controversity 
here.

2017-12-13 21:46 GMT+07:00 Paul Angus :


Thanks Rene.

@Ivan, I understand your concerns. But if 4.10 is unusable, then it
will never get much production testing.
The longer between releases, the harder testing and triage becomes.

By putting a line in the sand for 4.11 and 4.12, and with the desire
to  keep making every release better than the last we can keep moving forward.
   I think we're all largely in agreement that the process around 4.10
was  sub-optimal, which is why we've set out clear guidelines that we'd
like to  work to.

You are correct that there is more to quality than just Marvin tests
(or at least the current ones), and long term, if community members
like yourselves and Rene, come up with tests/test structures that push
the boundaries of CloudStack, then automated testing will only get better.

For now though, I would suggest that the best way to galvanise the
community around the manual testing of CloudStack is to have a release
candidate that everyone can coalesce around.



Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue




-Original Message-
From: Rene Moser [mailto:m...@renemoser.net]
Sent: 13 December 2017 12:56
To: dev ; users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Call for participation: Issue triaging and PR review/testing

Hi all

On 12/13/2017 05:04 AM, Ivan Kudryavtsev wrote:

Hello, devs, users, Rohit. Have a good day.

Rohit, you intend to freeze 4.11 on 8 january and, frankly speaking, I
see risks here. A major risk is that 4.10 is too buggy and it seems
nobody uses it actually right now in production because it's unusable,
unfortunately, so we are planning to freeze 4.11 which stands on
untested 4.10 with a lot of lacks still undiscovered and not reported.
I believe it's a very dangerous way to release one more release with
bad quality. Actually, marvin and units don't cover regressions I meet
in 4.10. Ok, let's take a look at new one our engineers found today in

4.10:

So, the point is, how do we (users, devs, all) improve quality?

Marvin is great for smoke testing but CloudStack is dealing with many
infra vendor components, which are not covered by the tests. How can we
detect flows not covered by marvin?

For me, I decided (independent of this discussion) to write integration
tests in a way one would not expect, not following the "happy path":

Try to break CloudStack, to make a better CloudStack.

Put a chaos monkey in your test infra: Shut down storage, kill a host, put
latency on storage, disable network on hosts, make load on a host.
read only fs on a 

RE: Call for participation: Issue triaging and PR review/testing

[Luis]

Manual testing, not sure if automated test could do an entire test

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Paul Angus wrote: 
  Hi Luis,

Can you explain what you mean please?  Do you mean people writing automated 
tests or manual testing of discrete features?



Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 


-Original Message-
From: Luis [mailto:lmartinez...@yahoo.com.INVALID] 
Sent: 14 December 2017 02:04
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; Ivan Kudryavtsev ; 
users@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: dev 
Subject: Re: Call for participation: Issue triaging and PR review/testing

Hi
What about creating a team for testing and create a check list of what to test 
and how. Besides the people that uses CS. This may increase the quality.
Just an idea.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Ivan Kudryavtsev 
wrote:  Hi, Paul. Thank you for your response. I just still feel that it's a 
very
risky approach to deliver a new release if community haven't adopted and tried 
a previous one because future unidentified regressions are multiplied to 
currently unidentified regressions. But, I see it's a trade and controversity 
here.

2017-12-13 21:46 GMT+07:00 Paul Angus :

> Thanks Rene.
>
> @Ivan, I understand your concerns. But if 4.10 is unusable, then it 
> will never get much production testing.
> The longer between releases, the harder testing and triage becomes.
>
> By putting a line in the sand for 4.11 and 4.12, and with the desire 
>to  keep making every release better than the last we can keep moving forward.
>  I think we're all largely in agreement that the process around 4.10 
>was  sub-optimal, which is why we've set out clear guidelines that we'd 
>like to  work to.
>
> You are correct that there is more to quality than just Marvin tests 
> (or at least the current ones), and long term, if community members 
> like yourselves and Rene, come up with tests/test structures that push 
> the boundaries of CloudStack, then automated testing will only get better.
>
> For now though, I would suggest that the best way to galvanise the 
> community around the manual testing of CloudStack is to have a release 
> candidate that everyone can coalesce around.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul Angus
>
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rene Moser [mailto:m...@renemoser.net]
> Sent: 13 December 2017 12:56
> To: dev ; users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Call for participation: Issue triaging and PR review/testing
>
> Hi all
>
> On 12/13/2017 05:04 AM, Ivan Kudryavtsev wrote:
> > Hello, devs, users, Rohit. Have a good day.
> >
> > Rohit, you intend to freeze 4.11 on 8 january and, frankly speaking, I
> > see risks here. A major risk is that 4.10 is too buggy and it seems
> > nobody uses it actually right now in production because it's unusable,
> > unfortunately, so we are planning to freeze 4.11 which stands on
> > untested 4.10 with a lot of lacks still undiscovered and not reported.
> > I believe it's a very dangerous way to release one more release with
> > bad quality. Actually, marvin and units don't cover regressions I meet
> > in 4.10. Ok, let's take a look at new one our engineers found today in
> 4.10:
>
> So, the point is, how do we (users, devs, all) improve quality?
>
> Marvin is great for smoke testing but CloudStack is dealing with many
> infra vendor components, which are not covered by the tests. How can we
> detect flows not covered by marvin?
>
> For me, I decided (independent of this discussion) to write integration
> tests in a way one would not expect, not following the "happy path":
>
> Try to break CloudStack, to make a better CloudStack.
>
> Put a chaos monkey in your test infra: Shut down storage, kill a host, put
> latency on storage, disable network on hosts, make load on a host.
> read only fs on a cluster wide primary fs. shut down a VR, remove a VR.
>
> Things that can happen!
>
> Not surprisingly I use Ansible. It has an extensive amount of modules
> which can be used to battle prove anything of your infra. Ansible playbooks
> are fairly easy to write, even when you are not used to write code.
>
> I will share my works when ready.
>
> René
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev
Bitworks Software, Ltd.
Cell: +7-923-414-1515
WWW: http://bitworks.software/   
  

RE: Call for participation: Issue triaging and PR review/testing

[Paul Angus]

Hi Luis,

Can you explain what you mean please?   Do you mean people writing automated 
tests or manual testing of discrete features?



Kind regards,

Paul Angus

paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 


-Original Message-
From: Luis [mailto:lmartinez...@yahoo.com.INVALID] 
Sent: 14 December 2017 02:04
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; Ivan Kudryavtsev ; 
users@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: dev 
Subject: Re: Call for participation: Issue triaging and PR review/testing

Hi
What about creating a team for testing and create a check list of what to test 
and how. Besides the people that uses CS. This may increase the quality.
Just an idea.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Ivan Kudryavtsev 
wrote:   Hi, Paul. Thank you for your response. I just still feel that it's a 
very
risky approach to deliver a new release if community haven't adopted and tried 
a previous one because future unidentified regressions are multiplied to 
currently unidentified regressions. But, I see it's a trade and controversity 
here.

2017-12-13 21:46 GMT+07:00 Paul Angus :

> Thanks Rene.
>
> @Ivan, I understand your concerns. But if 4.10 is unusable, then it 
> will never get much production testing.
> The longer between releases, the harder testing and triage becomes.
>
> By putting a line in the sand for 4.11 and 4.12, and with the desire 
>to  keep making every release better than the last we can keep moving forward.
>  I think we're all largely in agreement that the process around 4.10 
>was  sub-optimal, which is why we've set out clear guidelines that we'd 
>like to  work to.
>
> You are correct that there is more to quality than just Marvin tests 
> (or at least the current ones), and long term, if community members 
> like yourselves and Rene, come up with tests/test structures that push 
> the boundaries of CloudStack, then automated testing will only get better.
>
> For now though, I would suggest that the best way to galvanise the 
> community around the manual testing of CloudStack is to have a release 
> candidate that everyone can coalesce around.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul Angus
>
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rene Moser [mailto:m...@renemoser.net]
> Sent: 13 December 2017 12:56
> To: dev ; users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Call for participation: Issue triaging and PR review/testing
>
> Hi all
>
> On 12/13/2017 05:04 AM, Ivan Kudryavtsev wrote:
> > Hello, devs, users, Rohit. Have a good day.
> >
> > Rohit, you intend to freeze 4.11 on 8 january and, frankly speaking, I
> > see risks here. A major risk is that 4.10 is too buggy and it seems
> > nobody uses it actually right now in production because it's unusable,
> > unfortunately, so we are planning to freeze 4.11 which stands on
> > untested 4.10 with a lot of lacks still undiscovered and not reported.
> > I believe it's a very dangerous way to release one more release with
> > bad quality. Actually, marvin and units don't cover regressions I meet
> > in 4.10. Ok, let's take a look at new one our engineers found today in
> 4.10:
>
> So, the point is, how do we (users, devs, all) improve quality?
>
> Marvin is great for smoke testing but CloudStack is dealing with many
> infra vendor components, which are not covered by the tests. How can we
> detect flows not covered by marvin?
>
> For me, I decided (independent of this discussion) to write integration
> tests in a way one would not expect, not following the "happy path":
>
> Try to break CloudStack, to make a better CloudStack.
>
> Put a chaos monkey in your test infra: Shut down storage, kill a host, put
> latency on storage, disable network on hosts, make load on a host.
> read only fs on a cluster wide primary fs. shut down a VR, remove a VR.
>
> Things that can happen!
>
> Not surprisingly I use Ansible. It has an extensive amount of modules
> which can be used to battle prove anything of your infra. Ansible playbooks
> are fairly easy to write, even when you are not used to write code.
>
> I will share my works when ready.
>
> René
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev
Bitworks Software, Ltd.
Cell: +7-923-414-1515
WWW: http://bitworks.software/   

Re: [DISCUSS] Redundant Virtual Routers on VMware?

[daniel.herrmann]

Hi,

We are not running ACS but ACP, currently in version 4.7.11. We’d love to run 
rVR on VMWare with ESXi, but as you pointed out it is currently not supported.

Regards
Daniel

-- 
Daniel Herrmann
Network Engineer – Fraunhofer Private Cloud
CCIE #55056 (Routing and Switching)
Cisco CCDP, CCIP; Fluke CCTT
 
Fraunhoferstraße 5, 64283 Darmstadt
Tel.: +49 6151 155346
Mail: daniel.herrm...@zv.fraunhofer.de
 

On 14.12.17, 10:21, "Rene Moser"  wrote:

Hi

On 12/08/2017 11:56 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Is anyone using redundant virtual routers with VMware, either in VPCs or 
isolated networks (with recent or older versions of ACS)?

No, not currently. We once had rVR but this is quite a while ago. We
migrated away but it was related to issues finally turned out not
related to rVR.

Regards
René






smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [DISCUSS] Redundant Virtual Routers on VMware?

[Rene Moser]

Hi

On 12/08/2017 11:56 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Is anyone using redundant virtual routers with VMware, either in VPCs or 
> isolated networks (with recent or older versions of ACS)?

No, not currently. We once had rVR but this is quite a while ago. We
migrated away but it was related to issues finally turned out not
related to rVR.

Regards
René