RE: Nicira NVP + CloudStack 4.1

Kimihiko-san, There is the setup guide in the CloudStack documentation (http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/en-US/Apache_CloudStack/4.0.0-incubating/html/CloudStack_Nicira_NVP_Guide/index.html) . It is a bit outdated and I will try to improve it. It doesn't list the new layer 3 features present i

Re: [MERGE] security group advanced zone branch into master

Guys, Is it possible to merge this branch to 4.1? Wei 2013/5/23 Animesh Chaturvedi > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Anthony Xu [mailto:xuefei...@citrix.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:25 PM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Cc: Alena Prokharchyk; Wei Zhou (w.z...@leas

Re: Review Request: Marvin logger output showing repeated log lines.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11340/#review20930 --- Can you create a bug report for this? Otherwise the patch LGTM. - P

Re: Review Request: CS-2273: Automation: Change account membership for VMs

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11307/#review20929 --- test/integration/component/test_assign_vm.py

Re: Review Request: Marvin logger output showing repeated log lines.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11340/ --- (Updated May 23, 2013, 6:09 a.m.) Review request for cloudstack, Prasanna Santh

Review Request: Marvin logger output showing repeated log lines.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11340/ --- Review request for cloudstack, Prasanna Santhanam and Girish Shilamkar. Descrip

Re: Juniper SRX xml files copy logic

Please ignore my last answer. Thanks, Jayapal On 23-May-2013, at 10:12 AM, Jayapal Reddy Uradi wrote: > The files get copied when you add Junipre SRX device into CS. > > Thanks, > Jayapal > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Rayees Namathponnan [mailto:rayees.namathpon...@citrix.com] >

Re: Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-681: Dedicated Resources - Explicit Dedication, Private zone, pod, cluster or host

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10797/#review20928 --- In all the Dedicate* API's we should check if any VM's of other acco

Re: [ACS41][Patch Request]

Sorry - I saw that as 2460. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:15:15PM -0600, Marcus Sorensen wrote: > commit 795fd803da3eadee0fae1a13d0e97ae57b239657 > Author: Marcus Sorensen > Date: Wed May 22 23:12:30 2013 -0600 > > Summary: KVM - double migration can fail > > Detail: Undefine VM after mi

Re: [ACS41][Patch Request]

Should that be CLOUDSTACK-2330? On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:15:15PM -0600, Marcus Sorensen wrote: > commit 795fd803da3eadee0fae1a13d0e97ae57b239657 > Author: Marcus Sorensen > Date: Wed May 22 23:12:30 2013 -0600 > > Summary: KVM - double migration can fail > > Detail: Undefine VM afte

Re: Review Request: integration test for advanced zone with security groups

> On May 23, 2013, 5:16 a.m., Prasanna Santhanam wrote: > > +1 > > > > This looks super complete! Thanks for changing everything necessary! > > > > Since you are already a committer, would you like to commit this yourself? I'll setup the advanced security group zone across KVM on jenkins.buil

Re: Review Request: integration test for advanced zone with security groups

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11332/#review20926 --- Ship it! +1 This looks super complete! Thanks for changing everyth

[ACS41][Patch Request]

commit 795fd803da3eadee0fae1a13d0e97ae57b239657 Author: Marcus Sorensen Date: Wed May 22 23:12:30 2013 -0600 Summary: KVM - double migration can fail Detail: Undefine VM after migration. Lingering domain definitions cause migrations back to the original host to fail, since domain a

Re: Move project bylaws from the wiki to svn/published on the website?

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:32:58AM -0400, Chip Childers wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd like to propose moving the project's bylaws [1] from the wiki to the > project's website svn location. IMO, this will allow for a cleaner > update process (easier to provide a diff of a proposed change). > > Any obj

RE: Juniper SRX xml files copy logic

The files get copied when you add Junipre SRX device into CS. Thanks, Jayapal > -Original Message- > From: Rayees Namathponnan [mailto:rayees.namathpon...@citrix.com] > Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013 4:58 AM > To: cloudstack-...@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Juniper SRX xml files copy log

Re: Review Request: CS-2273: Automation: Change account membership for VMs

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11307/ --- (Updated May 23, 2013, 3:56 a.m.) Review request for cloudstack, Likitha Shetty

Re: assignVirtualMachine API fails

Thanks Prasanna, Likitha. I have fixed the VM create call in tests. Now test for VM without PF rule are working for assignVirtualMachine. ./Ashu On 22-May-2013, at 7:47 PM, Prasanna Santhanam wrote: > If you used VirtualMachine.create from base.py then the PF rule would > be implicitly created

[MERGE] vmware-datamodel branch to MASTER

Hi, I have put the feature proposed and implementation is done in branch [2] up for review. Code for this feature conforms to what was proposed in FS [1]. It includes unit tests for verifying the functionality. Please take a look at it and let me know your comments. With this feature, VMware d

RE: [MERGE] security group advanced zone branch into master

> -Original Message- > From: Anthony Xu [mailto:xuefei...@citrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:25 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Cc: Alena Prokharchyk; Wei Zhou (w.z...@leaseweb.com); Anthony Xu > Subject: [MERGE] security group advanced zone branch into master > > Hi all,

[MERGE] security group advanced zone branch into master

Hi all, CloudStack has this feature in 2.2.14, but drops it in 3.0.2 somehow. In this branch, we add this feature back, below is brief description for this feature, - Introduce advanced zone with security group, in this zone, only one shared network with security group is al

Re: [WEBSITE] Security page for cloudstack.apache.org

Been working through a few ideas in my head, will see movement on this in the next few days. On May 15, 2013, at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers wrote: > (note mixing of public and private lists) > > We need a security page for cloudstack.apache.org, so that I can add > CloudStack to http://www.apache.

[ACS42] Release Status Update - 9 days left to freeze

Folks We are 9 days from ACS 42 feature freeze Out of 98 proposed features /improvements, the status is Closed: 5 Resolved: 33 In Progress: 15 Reopened: 1: Ready to review: 2 Open: 42 We have not made much progress in updating the tickets last week. Given that we are just a few days away fro

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

John, Can you clarify a bit on your last comment about directly accessing S3 HTTP API? We are only invoking routines in S3Utils to perform operations with S3, not invoke any REST api if that is what you meant. Thanks -min On 5/22/13 2:49 PM, "John Burwell" wrote: >Ediso

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

Edison, For changes that take as long as described, it should be expected that the review will take a proportional amount of time. In future releases, we should think through ways to divide changes such as these into a set of smaller patches submitted throughout the course of the release cycle.

RE: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

> -Original Message- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:26 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:15:41PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > > > > >

RE: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

> -Original Message- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:26 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:15:41PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > > > > >

Re: Nicira NVP + CloudStack 4.1

Hey Chip, I still need to update the nvp plugin guide. It's a bit outdated and the new features are not in there yet. Also the admin guide makes no mention of SDN support at all. Guess I have some work to do there as well. I'll get to it ASAP. Cheers, Hugo Sent from my iPhone On 22 mei 201

Review Request: integration test for advanced zone with security groups

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11332/ --- Review request for cloudstack and anthony xu. Description --- This patch i

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:15:41PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:08 PM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master >

Re: [ACS41] Outstanding Blockers - Please Read!

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:15:39PM +0200, Ove Ewerlid wrote: > Prachi, patch applied manually in local tree, rebuilt RPMs and did a > "yum reinstall cloudstack*" on manager. After restart the test setup > for this issue has cycled through 257 VM create/destroy without the > issue manifesting itself

Re: [ACS41] Outstanding Blockers - Please Read!

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 05:09:53AM +, Kishan Kavala wrote: > Chip, > CLOUDSTACK-2516- I've added my comments for documentation. Added to docs. Thanks!

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 04:15:14PM -0400, Chip Childers wrote: > All, > > As discussed on another thread [1], we identified a bug > (CLOUDSTACK-2492) in the current 3.x system VMs, where the System VMs > are not configured to sync their time with either the host HV or an NTP > service. That bug a

RE: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

> -Original Message- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:08 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:00:51PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > > > > >

RE: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

Templates for IPV6 feature in 4.1 is different from the 4.2 templates. They are hosted here - http://cloudstack.apt-get.eu/systemvm/ as 4.1.0-experimental-ipv6-* . Also support was extended only for KVM and Xenserver. -Thanks Sangeetha -Original Message- From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:s

Re: VMWare SCSI Controller Type

Ilya, While I am agree that we need variable support, it's a bit complex to put together. Basically you could have multiple clusters with different ESXi versions. Worse yet, within the same cluster you could have multiple ESXi versions (I know this is a bad design). Its much easier to set th

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

On 5/22/13 12:30 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote: >On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:26:06PM +, Alena Prokharchyk wrote: >> On 5/22/13 11:11 AM, "Chip Childers" wrote: >> >> >On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 06:08:52PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: >> >> Alena and I discussed with folks at Orange, their use-c

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:26:06PM +, Alena Prokharchyk wrote: > On 5/22/13 11:11 AM, "Chip Childers" wrote: > > >On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 06:08:52PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > >> Alena and I discussed with folks at Orange, their use-case can be > >>supported in AdvancedZone without Se

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

On 5/22/13 11:11 AM, "Chip Childers" wrote: >On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 06:08:52PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: >> Alena and I discussed with folks at Orange, their use-case can be >>supported in AdvancedZone without SecurityGroup by creating account >>specific guest network. Alena will look at

Re: Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-2568 ACS41 regression in storage subsystem (seen with local storage and 2 or more hosts)

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11330/#review20909 --- Ship it! Committed to 4.1: commit 78186c3b0201ecf55779b3f4bb6a3105

Re: Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-2568 ACS41 regression in storage subsystem (seen with local storage and 2 or more hosts)

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11330/#review20908 --- Commit 78186c3b0201ecf55779b3f4bb6a3105fec1288d in branch refs/heads

RE: VMWare SCSI Controller Type

Francois, While I am agree that we need variable support, it's a bit complex to put together. Basically you could have multiple clusters with different ESXi versions. Worse yet, within the same cluster you could have multiple ESXi versions (I know this is a bad design). Its much easier to set

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

Chip, One other point to add is that some of us are part-time to the project with other $dayjob responsibilities. For patches this size, those that are part time need a little calendar to provide feedback. Thanks, -Jobn On May 22, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 20

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

Chip, +1. It is very tight to give this type patch the appropriate attention this late in the cycle. Thanks, -John On May 22, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:00:51PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: John Bur

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:00:51PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:51 AM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master > > > > Edis

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

Animesh, I am working through it now. I will do my best to be done by Friday, but it is a massive patch to digest (25 pages in Review Board). Thanks, -John On May 22, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

On May 22, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 06:08:52PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: >> Alena and I discussed with folks at Orange, their use-case can be supported >> in AdvancedZone without SecurityGroup by creating account specific guest >> network. Alena w

RE: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

> -Original Message- > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:51 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master > > Edison, > > Thanks, I will start going through it today. Based on other $dayjob > respon

RE: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

> -Original Message- > From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 9:57 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for > CLOUDSTACK-2492? > > THere's literally hundreds of other

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

I'm also reneging on my 0 vote, and move it to a +1 to release. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Mathias Mullins < mathias.mull...@citrix.com> wrote: > Reading through this and seeing Chiradeep's passionate comments here and > reasoning. I'Ll go from -1 to +1 on this. Especially since we will s

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

Reading through this and seeing Chiradeep's passionate comments here and reasoning. I'Ll go from -1 to +1 on this. Especially since we will see this in 4.2. I still think it's a bruise, but hopefully will not be a black eye. Matt On 5/22/13 10:24 AM, "Chip Childers" wrote: >On Wed, May 22,

Re: Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-2568 ACS41 regression in storage subsystem (seen with local storage and 2 or more hosts)

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11330/#review20905 --- This does not apply: Applying: CLOUDSTACK-2568: ACS41 regression in

Re: 40-41 upgrade

I'm not sure about the Netscaler feature (Murali?). If it's in, then we need that to be corrected in the upgrade script before cutting a release. Bare metal isn't "enabled" for 4.1. *However* if the configs are there for a fresh install then they should be appropriately done for the upgrade too,

Re: Nicira NVP + CloudStack 4.1

Hugo, Was the doc updated for the new 4.1 features? -chip On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:59:49PM +, Kimihiko Kitase wrote: > Hello > > Are there setup guide for the configuration of Nicira NVP and CloudStack 4.1? > > Thanks > Kimi >

Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-2568 ACS41 regression in storage subsystem (seen with local storage and 2 or more hosts)

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11330/ --- Review request for cloudstack and Chip Childers. Description --- Patch cre

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 06:08:52PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > Alena and I discussed with folks at Orange, their use-case can be supported > in AdvancedZone without SecurityGroup by creating account specific guest > network. Alena will look at their database to help them migrate the db We

RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

Alena and I discussed with folks at Orange, their use-case can be supported in AdvancedZone without SecurityGroup by creating account specific guest network. Alena will look at their database to help them migrate the db > -Original Message- > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chat

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: cloudstack-rat-41 #331

Fixed the Nicira files causing the error. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 04:50:18PM +, Apache Jenkins Server wrote: > See > > Changes: > > [chip.childers] Update the Logical Router NatRules to be compatible with the > NVP 3.x.x > > [ch

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: > For those wanting to use the S3-sync for XCP/Xen, they could use the 4.2 > template. Just like the IPV6 feature, that could be deemed experimental. I'm now in agreement with this. The "root issue" is now solved for KVM and VMware users i

Re: stackmate ToDo

Dharmesh, I plan to push v0.0.2 of stackmate soon. Re: rollback, exceptions are actually caught by Ruote and causes it to call 'cancel' on participants that are already running. Rollback would involve finding the error status from Ruote (engine.errors) and then executing a new process definition th

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

For those wanting to use the S3-sync for XCP/Xen, they could use the 4.2 template. Just like the IPV6 feature, that could be deemed experimental. On 5/22/13 10:01 AM, "Chiradeep Vittal" wrote: >As the author of the original systemvm (and current contributor to the >systemvm), I can confidently s

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

Maybe I am wrong, but are we debating around a problem that can be fixed by adding a simple package to the systemvm? On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Chiradeep Vittal < chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > As the author of the original systemvm (and current contributor to the > systemvm), I can

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

As the author of the original systemvm (and current contributor to the systemvm), I can confidently state that this issue has been there since 2.2.0. The issue is that the Debian 2.6.32 kernel is a PVOPS kernel. All PVOPs kernels require ntp to keep time sync. http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

THere's literally hundreds of other features that work just fine on XCP/Xen. What you are complaining against is the nature of time-based releases. The drag from 4.1 is jeopardizing 4.2, 4.3, etc, making a mockery of our stated goal of 3 releases a year. There's developers who had to pull out the

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

If this were creating a new bug, for example "oh, your VPCs won't work anymore for this release", or "here's a new UI, but it's really buggy and barely functional" then I'd agree with this train of thought. Instead, we are saying "we recently found out that since 2.2.x cloudstack has had this behav

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

I agree with everything being said, assuming it's a critical bug. Otherwise, the quality argument doesn't hold up, because it's otherwise a blanket defense for anything. I'm just not seeing evidence that anyone running a cloudstack cloud for the last two years has cared or noticed that the time ca

Re: Move project bylaws from the wiki to svn/published on the website?

+1 On 22 May 2013 16:32, Chip Childers wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd like to propose moving the project's bylaws [1] from the wiki to the > project's website svn location. IMO, this will allow for a cleaner > update process (easier to provide a diff of a proposed change). > > Any objections? I'll

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013, at 10:51 AM, John Burwell wrote: > > I would say that the only thing for an open source project worse than not > > releasing is releasing a poor quality release. A late release with high > > quality is soon forgotten

Re: About XAPI task queue

Sure. Thanks Seb :-) 2013/5/22 Sebastien Goasguen > You might also want to check out IRC > > xen-api on freenode > > On May 21, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Nguyen Anh Tu wrote: > > > Perfect, Chiradeep. Exactly what i'm looking for. How about xapi queue? > > Could u send me more information about it > >

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

Joe, I just realized a dropped a sentence out by accident. I meant to add that this issue does not approach KDE 4.0 (they had literally 100s of issues), but they got caught up in the desire to get something out for world to see, and ended up harming their reputation. I am merely warning again

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

On Wed, May 22, 2013, at 10:51 AM, John Burwell wrote: > I would say that the only thing for an open source project worse than not > releasing is releasing a poor quality release. A late release with high > quality is soon forgotten. An on-time or late release with poor quality > lingers in folks

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

Marcus, I would say that the only thing for an open source project worse than not releasing is releasing a poor quality release. A late release with high quality is soon forgotten. An on-time or late release with poor quality lingers in folks memory. The KDE project made the near fatal mistak

Move project bylaws from the wiki to svn/published on the website?

Hi all, I'd like to propose moving the project's bylaws [1] from the wiki to the project's website svn location. IMO, this will allow for a cleaner update process (easier to provide a diff of a proposed change). Any objections? I'll assume lazy consensus on this change and make it next week if

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

Thanks for the response. Time sync is certainly an issue, I think one of the things we are trying to gauge is whether the system vm functionality has been impacted by time sync such that anyone has noticed or cared. That's not to detract from the point that having time sync is optimal, and affects

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

Marcus, For me, S3 integration and Xen feature parity are not the primary reasons that this defect should remain a blocker. Time synchronization is a basic and essential assumption for systems such as CloudStack. This defect yields file and log timestamps from secondary storage that are unrel

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

Hi, We will be connected on IRC, (#cloudstack-dev channel) on 6pm CET (GMT+1, France Time). Notify us when you are available. Nick: - gfraysse - l_a_m - mmauget Regards. Le 22/05/2013 16:02, Sebastien Goasguen a écrit : On May 22, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Chip Childers wrote: CC'ing Animesh an

Re: [ACS41] System VMs not syncing time - does this block the release?

Isn't there some other way we can sync the time as a triage that would avoid a large test on the system vm template? Like adding a time flag to one of the commonly-run system vm scripts (or even just the ones that trigger tasks that require accurate time), which would run a 'date' command in the sy

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we need a 4.0.3?

On Wed, May 22, 2013, at 09:26 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: > On 05/21/2013 10:03 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > The longer I think about it, the more I agree. Since these issues have > been resolved in 4.1 and we are so close, we'd better focus on 4.1 > indeed. > > Since I think 4.0.3 would only be

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

> On Mon, May 20, 2013, at 03:15 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > Please respond with one of the following: > > +1: proceed with 4.1 without the Xen portion of CLOUDSTACK-2492 being > resolved > +0: don't care one way or the other > -1: do *not* proceed with any further 4.1 release candidates until > CL

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

I feel like we need to clarify what's at risk here. Not to disrespect anyone's opinion, but I'm just not getting where this is being considered a major feature. I think the very idea of Xen not having feature parity (regardless of the feature) is distasteful to a lot of us, and it should be. But c

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we need a 4.0.3?

On 05/21/2013 10:03 PM, Chip Childers wrote: On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:21:14AM -0400, Chip Childers wrote: On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:19:05AM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote: Hi all, We apparently have a regression in 4.0.2 that will break new deployments on Ceph RDB, and I was also CC'ed on anot

Re: assignVirtualMachine API fails

If you used VirtualMachine.create from base.py then the PF rule would be implicitly created for you. Is that the case? On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 06:44:13PM +0530, Girish Shilamkar wrote: > +Ashutosh. > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Likitha Shetty > wrote: > > > Girish, > > > > ** ** >

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

On May 22, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Chip Childers wrote: > CC'ing Animesh and Alena (since they are the ones offering to be in > contact). > > Nicolas - keep in mind that they are US West Coast time. And when you > say 6PM, which timezone are you in specifically? Paris time, currently PST +9, 9am fo

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

We mean 6pm CET (GMT+1, France Time), which should mean 9am PST in the West Coast. On 05/22/2013 03:55 PM, Chip Childers wrote: CC'ing Animesh and Alena (since they are the ones offering to be in contact). Nicolas - keep in mind that they are

Nicira NVP + CloudStack 4.1

Hello Are there setup guide for the configuration of Nicira NVP and CloudStack 4.1? Thanks Kimi

Re: Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-681: Dedicated Resources - Explicit Dedication, Private zone, pod, cluster or host

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10797/#review20894 --- Commit 49e39e51f2bd39c1e5cd60389f4433d58f9415bc in branch refs/head

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

CC'ing Animesh and Alena (since they are the ones offering to be in contact). Nicolas - keep in mind that they are US West Coast time. And when you say 6PM, which timezone are you in specifically? On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:46:27PM +0200, nicolas.lamira...@orange.com wrote: > Hi, > is it possibl

RE: [PATCH][ACS41] Update Nicira NVP api to support NVP version 3.x.x

Thanks Chip! > -Original Message- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:40 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH][ACS41] Update Nicira NVP api to support NVP version > 3.x.x > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 09:58:12AM +000

Re: [PATCH][ACS41] Update Nicira NVP api to support NVP version 3.x.x

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 09:58:12AM +, Hugo Trippaers wrote: > Hey guys, > > I pushed commit 4e090796408152af5c06ce72f346ee9ea5d4d404 to master. This > commit supports the changes to the NVP api introduced in version 3.x.x > > I'm a bit hesitant to request this a this time in the 4.1 release

Re: Product versions support in XcpServerDiscoverer.java

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:41:16AM +, Venkata SwamyBabu Budumuru wrote: > Hi, > > Currently XcpServerDiscoverer.java is coded to support each individual > version of XenSever based on XenSever version. In fact, CS is only talking to > XAPI hence, can we just rely on XAPI version rather the X

Re: [ACS41] Outstanding Blockers - Please Read!

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:40:07PM +, Prachi Damle wrote: > Chip, > I just resolved the ticket, please cherry-pick following commit's from > master to 4.1 branch. > > 1) ee0a91d111349b981d5f97fa69c97c34d9f15268 > 2) dce42581710ce3613f4bf765d713fab9552747ca Prachi, These commits don't cherr

Re: Using rados-java as a new Maven dependency for KVM

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:51:55PM +0200, Wido den Hollander wrote: > > I wrote all the code. So I just released version 0.1.1 which is > licensed ASLv2. > > I just went for LGPLv2 because I needed some license. These are just > bindings, so I don't care that much. > > Any objections against usi

Re: assignVirtualMachine API fails

+Ashutosh. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Likitha Shetty wrote: > Girish, > > ** ** > > I am not able to reproduce this on master. Can you double check if port > forwarding has not been set on the VM? > > And if a PF rule has been configured then it is the expected behavior. > > *

RE: assignVirtualMachine API fails

Girish, I am not able to reproduce this on master. Can you double check if port forwarding has not been set on the VM? And if a PF rule has been configured then it is the expected behavior. Thanks, Likitha From: Girish Shilamkar [mailto:gir...@clogeny.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:40 PM

Re: Using rados-java as a new Maven dependency for KVM

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: > On 05/21/2013 09:53 PM, David Nalley wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Chip Childers >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0200, Wido den Hollander wrote: On 05/21/2013 09:16 PM, Wido den

Re: [DISCUSS] Should we pause merges into master until 4.1 is out the door?

On Wed, May 22, 2013, at 04:53 AM, Hiroaki KAWAI wrote: > +1 for making effort to keep 4.1 maintained. > As far as I know, there're many people waiting 4.1 release. There are many people waiting for a 4.1 release *they can use*. There's nothing to stop end users from grabbing the 4.1 tree in its

Re: [ACS41] Outstanding Blockers - Please Read!

Prachi, patch applied manually in local tree, rebuilt RPMs and did a "yum reinstall cloudstack*" on manager. After restart the test setup for this issue has cycled through 257 VM create/destroy without the issue manifesting itself. Thanks Prachi for fixing and thanks Chip for the release work.

Re: Using rados-java as a new Maven dependency for KVM

On 05/21/2013 09:53 PM, David Nalley wrote: On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Chip Childers wrote: On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0200, Wido den Hollander wrote: On 05/21/2013 09:16 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote: Hi, In the rbd-snap-clone [0] branch I'm working on the new RBD features l

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

Hi, is it possible to have a meeting today, May 22 6pm for Europe ? Guillaume is the privileged interlocutor. Regards. e 21/05/2013 22:20, Chip Childers a écrit : Adding Nicolas to the CC line to be sure that he sees Animesh's offer. Animesh - Nicolas is in the EU, so I'd expect a reply tomorro

Re: Review Request: generalisation of network code (needed for CLOUDSTACK-1532)

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10970/ --- (Updated May 22, 2013, 11:21 a.m.) Review request for cloudstack, Murali Reddy

Product versions support in XcpServerDiscoverer.java

Hi, Currently XcpServerDiscoverer.java is coded to support each individual version of XenSever based on XenSever version. In fact, CS is only talking to XAPI hence, can we just rely on XAPI version rather the XenServer version. This approach will avoid changing XcpSserverDiscoverer.java for eve

  1   2   >