Re: [ACS41] can't start cloudstack-management service

CLOUDSTACK-2758. Workaround is in the bug. Root cause - Unknown. On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 06:09:53AM +, Paul Angus wrote: > Hi, > > On clean builds of 4.1-SNAPSHOT I'm getting an issue where the > cloudstack-management service can't start because of the permissions > on /var/log/cloudstack/man

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

Wido, Exactly. I have pushed the features into master. If anyone object thems for technical reason till Monday, I will revert them. -Wei 2013/5/31 Wido den Hollander > On 05/31/2013 03:59 PM, John Burwell wrote: > >> Wido, >> >> +1 -- this enhancement must to discretely support read and write

[ACS41] can't start cloudstack-management service

Hi, On clean builds of 4.1-SNAPSHOT I'm getting an issue where the cloudstack-management service can't start because of the permissions on /var/log/cloudstack/management/catalina.out If I change the permissions to allow root user and group has full control of the file. Then the service can sta

Re: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

-0 Change to -0 as I suggest to wait for the merge of existing review requests in days (48 or 72 hours). -Wei 2013/5/31 Wei ZHOU > -1 > Almost all new features for 4.2 have been merged or being reviewed. > From now, we'd better donot accept new feature review requests,and > create 4.2 branch

Re: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

+1. I know we are time based, but I worry that the 4.1 delay is a sign that we've simply got too much to do. 4 weeks seems like a good middle ground between the 8 weeks lost in 4.1 and no extension at all. On May 31, 2013 11:37 PM, "Chiradeep Vittal" wrote: > -0 > > I hope that if it passes, it w

Re: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

-0 I hope that if it passes, it won't become a habit! On 5/31/13 8:00 AM, "Chip Childers" wrote: >Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature freeze >date for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a clear consensus. Well... >we have already defined the "project rules" for f

Re: CloudMonkey handling of Job Status Error Code

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:13:03AM +0530, Prasanna Santhanam wrote: > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 01:49:02AM +, Soheil Eizadi wrote: > > > I don't know if the following is a known issue, while testing some > > > negative test case, I added

RE: CloudMonkey handling of Job Status Error Code

Yes, I installed it from PIP. Here is the version I get from it: Administrators-MacBook-Pro-7:~ seizadi$ cloudmonkey --version cloudmonkey 4.1.0-snapshot3 Command Line Interface for Apache CloudStack (http://incubator.apache.org/cloudstack) From: Prasanna

Re: Inconsistent error while creating instances

I've hit this in the past when there was a mismatch between the actual guest os and what i provided as the guest os type (in cloudstack). On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Pranav Saxena wrote: > Are your systemVms up and running fine ? Is your XS host a brand new setup > ? Do you have the vhd-uti

Re: 4.2 snapshot: setting up ISOs - no go

awesome news, thanks for the update David! On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:14 AM, La Motta, David wrote: > Hi Nitin, pls check out http://pastebin.com/AfU4Vs91 > > nfs-common failed during VM startup, but it later seems to have > stabilized. ssvm-check.sh chokes with DNS not available, as expected.

RE: Create View Question

Nitin, I added volume_view to schema-410to420.sql first. I added volume_view at line 718 ~ line 818: --- Author: Jessica Wang #mailto:jessicaw...@apache.org Author date:1 month ago (Tue Apr 23 11

Re: Review Request: SolidFire storage plug-in and enhancements to the storage framework and GUI

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11479/ --- (Updated May 31, 2013, 9:18 p.m.) Review request for cloudstack, edison su and

secondary storage questions

Sort of embarrassed to ask this, but I'm unclear on a few of the aspects of secondary storage. 1) I can see that if I add multiple secondary storage locations, they each get a copy of the registered templates. Are these copied from one secondary storage to another, or from the url of the registere

Re: Review Request: SolidFire storage plug-in and enhancements to the storage framework and GUI

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11479/#review21265 --- Mike, I think it is better to create a table for SolidFire instead

[OFFLINE] From June 5 to 8

I'll be (mostly) off line from June 5 to 8.

Re: [MERGED] VMware DC to Zone mapping model into Master

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 08:07:51PM +, Sateesh Chodapuneedi wrote: > Hi, > Completed merging branch vmware-datamodel into Master. > > Here is a note to users who deploy CloudStack over VMware hypervisor. We have > a new step introduced in the work flow of setting up CloudStack (1 more step >

[MERGED] VMware DC to Zone mapping model into Master

Hi, Completed merging branch vmware-datamodel into Master. Here is a note to users who deploy CloudStack over VMware hypervisor. We have a new step introduced in the work flow of setting up CloudStack (1 more step before addCluster step). It is, before adding first VMware cluster into CloudStack

Re: [PROPOSAL] Storage plug-in for 4.2

No problem! :) On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote: > Mike, > Thanks a lot! > > -Wei > > 2013/5/31, Mike Tutkowski : > > Hi Wei, > > > > Thanks! > > > > Here are the details you requested. This also talks about Min and Max > IOPS. > > > > Please let me know if you'd like more inform

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

Comments inline: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 09:42:29PM +, Edison Su wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:43 AM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master > >

Re: [PROPOSAL] Storage plug-in for 4.2

Mike, Thanks a lot! -Wei 2013/5/31, Mike Tutkowski : > Hi Wei, > > Thanks! > > Here are the details you requested. This also talks about Min and Max IOPS. > > Please let me know if you'd like more information. I have an entire > document I could share with you regarding SolidFire QoS (the info be

Re: [VOTE] List CloudStack related books on the website

+1 Regards, Mark R. Hinkle Senior Director, Open Source Solutions Citrix Systems e: mark.hin...@citrix.com twitter: @mrhinkle On May 28, 2013, at 6:34 PM, Tariq Iqbal mailto:tariq.iq...@shapeblue.com>> wrote: +1 Regards, Tariq Iqbal S: +44 20 3603 0540 |

Re: 4.2 snapshot: Instance creation fails

So, Ubuntu 12.04.1 failed, Fedora 10 failed, Windows 7 failed… but wait, CentOS 6.0 did not! Ubuntu 12.04.1 and Windows 7 failed because I am running in an entirely virtualized environment, so my virtual XenServer doesn't have HVM. Fedora 10 failed because XS 6.1 doesn't like it. And, finally

External Network Usage

Hey All, I am trying to get my head around this. From what I understand, if I am implementing an external firewall I am forced to implement the 'ExternalNetworkResourceUsageCommand'. I have not found a way to not support the collection of usage data. Is that possible? If so, how? My current pr

Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-2053: fixed if/else logic to address redundant entires, fixed boto/cloud-init support by adding metadata rewrite rule

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11582/ --- Review request for cloudstack, Chip Childers and Chiradeep Vittal. Description

Re: Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-2053: fixed if/else logic to address redundant entires, fixed boto/cloud-init support by adding metadata rewrite rule

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11582/ --- (Updated May 31, 2013, 5:57 p.m.) Review request for cloudstack, Chip Childers

4.2 snapshot: Instance creation fails

I'm starting a new thread, since the secondary storage woes seem to be resolved, the culprit being secstorage.allowed.internal.sites and lack of MS / XS / SSVM reboots. The ISOs have been downloaded, which means the SSVM is alive and kicking. …however, when I attempt to create an instance, it

Re: [PROPOSAL] Storage plug-in for 4.2

Hi Wei, Thanks! Here are the details you requested. This also talks about Min and Max IOPS. Please let me know if you'd like more information. I have an entire document I could share with you regarding SolidFire QoS (the info below is taken from this document). Talk to you later! How does Soli

cloudstack usage survey

All Over on @marketing, we've been working on a user survey. This will hopefully give us a much better view of the current CloudStack User base The survey is here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/28BV97D We need to try and get as many cloudstack users as possible to respond. So, I'd appreciate a

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

Nice one. Thanks Chip! On 31 May 2013 17:38, Chip Childers wrote: > 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

Re: [PROPOSAL] Storage plug-in for 4.2

Mike, good work. I notice the burst IOPS. Do you know the mechanism and the config of it, like the duration and interval burst IO? Thanks. -Wei 2013/5/31, Mike Tutkowski : > Hi everyone, > > I apologize for being unfamiliar with how I should have gone about getting > consensus for the storage pl

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: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

-1 Almost all new features for 4.2 have been merged or being reviewed. >From now, we'd better donot accept new feature review requests,and create 4.2 branch after committing existed requests in short time. -Wei 2013/5/31, Chip Childers : > Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the

RE: Inconsistent error while creating instances

Are your systemVms up and running fine ? Is your XS host a brand new setup ? Do you have the vhd-util file present at /opt/xensource/bin in your host ? -Original Message- From: Gaurav Aradhye [mailto:gaurav.arad...@clogeny.com] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 7:11 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

Thanks Chip Thanks Animesh On May 31, 2013, at 7:34 AM, "Chip Childers" wrote: > This thread does *not* appear to have reached a consensus. As a > project, we typically work to achieve consensus without any sort of > formal VOTE. However, I believe that we are going to need one. > > I'll kic

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:13:53AM -0400, John Burwell wrote: > Chip, > > As I understand the [VOTE] extension email, the code freeze is currently > extended to Tuesday, 4 June 2012, regardless of the vote outcome. If my > understanding is correct, then we have three more days to complete the

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

Chip, As I understand the [VOTE] extension email, the code freeze is currently extended to Tuesday, 4 June 2012, regardless of the vote outcome. If my understanding is correct, then we have three more days to complete the review/feedback loop -- correct? Thanks, -John On May 31, 2013, at 11:

Re: 4.2 snapshot: setting up ISOs - no go

Hi Nitin, pls check out http://pastebin.com/AfU4Vs91 nfs-common failed during VM startup, but it later seems to have stabilized. ssvm-check.sh chokes with DNS not available, as expected. iptables is wide open. Like I mentioned in my earlier message, the ISOs are now being downloaded… so rebo

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:55:38PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > Accidently sent too soon, updated my response in-line to Mike > > > -Original Message- > > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 4:50 PM > > To: dev@cloudstack.a

Re: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

+1 for reasons state on the previous proposal thread. On May 31, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Chip Childers wrote: > Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature freeze > date for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a clear consensus. Well... > we have already defined the "project

[VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature freeze date for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a clear consensus. Well... we have already defined the "project rules" for figuring out what to do. In out project by-laws [2], we have defined a "release plan" decision as follo

Re: [PROPOSAL] Storage plug-in for 4.2

Mike, Excellent. Thanks, -John On May 31, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Mike Tutkowski wrote: > Hi John, > > I think this is the link you'll need: > > https://reviews.apache.org/r/11479/ > > Thanks! :) > > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:45 AM, John Burwell wrote: > Mike/Animesh, > > I am happy to re

Re: [PROPOSAL] Storage plug-in for 4.2

Hi John, I think this is the link you'll need: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11479/ Thanks! :) On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:45 AM, John Burwell wrote: > Mike/Animesh, > > I am happy to review. However, other $dayjob duties may prevent me from > getting to it until Monday. Has the patch been pu

Re: [PROPOSAL] Storage plug-in for 4.2

Mike/Animesh, I am happy to review. However, other $dayjob duties may prevent me from getting to it until Monday. Has the patch been pushed into Review Board? Thanks, -John On May 31, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Mike Tutkowski wrote: > Hi Animesh, > > Sure, I'd be happy to do that. > > Would you

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

This thread does *not* appear to have reached a consensus. As a project, we typically work to achieve consensus without any sort of formal VOTE. However, I believe that we are going to need one. I'll kick one off momentarily. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 02:35:22AM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:

Re: [PROPOSAL] Storage plug-in for 4.2

Hi Animesh, Sure, I'd be happy to do that. Would you like these comments in this e-mail chain, the design doc, and/or the JIRA ticket? Also, just to make sure I understand correctly when we refer to "dependencies" here, the plug-in simply requires the storage-framework changes that Edison put in

Re: 4.2 snapshot: setting up ISOs - no go

I thought I did… but my brain was fried yesterday, so all things could've happened. I just rebooted the entire CS XS instance, system VMs and all, and the ISOs are downloading from my internal site right now. Next up, creating an instance ;-) David La Motta Technical Marketing Engineer Citri

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

On 05/31/2013 03:59 PM, John Burwell wrote: Wido, +1 -- this enhancement must to discretely support read and write IOPS. I don't see how it could be fixed later because I don't see how we correctly split total IOPS into read and write. Therefore, we would be stuck with a total unless/until

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

Wido, I agree with you. Obviously we can not merge it into 4.2 while change it in 4.3. I will change it next week. If possible, I will investigate other hypervisors support in the Testing/Bug Fixes window (3/6/2013 to 30/6/2013). -Wei 2013/5/31 Wido den Hollander > Hi Wei, > > > On 05/31/201

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

Wido, +1 -- this enhancement must to discretely support read and write IOPS. I don't see how it could be fixed later because I don't see how we correctly split total IOPS into read and write. Therefore, we would be stuck with a total unless/until we decided to break backwards compatibility.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CloudStack 4.1.0 (fifth round)

Hi all, I'm going to keep this vote open until sometime tomorrow. Prasanna wants some time to be sure that the BVT runs all complete successfully with the proposed release artifact, and I'd like to have his test results as part of the vote. If he's +1 (doesn't find any blockers that would cause m

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CloudStack 4.1.0 (fifth round)

+1 Built nonoss RPMS from source release. Installed and configured on 6.3 Provisioned CLVM primary storage Provisioned advanced networked zone Provisioned project Provisioned test VMs under project. - Original Message - From: "Chip Childers" To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Sent:

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

Hi Wei, On 05/31/2013 03:13 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote: Hi Wido, Thanks. Good question. I thought about at the beginning. Finally I decided to ignore the difference of read and write mainly because the network throttling did not care the difference of sent and received bytes as well. That reasoning

Inconsistent error while creating instances

Hi, I am getting following error while creating instances through test cases. The error is not reproducible each time, but the typical scenario is while creating two or more instances consecutively. Error info says "*Bootloader.Bad_error*" The error is produced for each available host, eventuall

Re: [ACS42]CLOUDSTACK-681: Dedicated Resources - Explicit Dedication, Private zone, pod, cluster or host

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:38:46AM +, Sailaja Mada wrote: > Hi, > > This is regarding the feature that is committed to the master > recently (CLOUDSTACK-681: Dedicated Resources - Explicit Dedication, > Private zone, pod, cluster or host) . > > I have created the setup using latest 4.2 RPM's

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CloudStack 4.1.0 (fifth round)

On Tue, May 28, 2013, at 08:47 AM, Chip Childers wrote: > For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to > indicate "(binding)" with their vote? > > [ ] +1 approve > [ ] +0 no opinion > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) +1 (binding) Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier j...@zonk

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

Hi Wido, Thanks. Good question. I thought about at the beginning. Finally I decided to ignore the difference of read and write mainly because the network throttling did not care the difference of sent and received bytes as well. Implementing it will be some copy-paste work. It could be implement

Re: CloudMonkey handling of Job Status Error Code

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:13:03AM +0530, Prasanna Santhanam wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 01:49:02AM +, Soheil Eizadi wrote: > > I don't know if the following is a known issue, while testing some > > negative test case, I added a device that was not part of network > > provider associated w

Re: [MERGE] diso_io_stat branch into MASTER

Hi Wido, I put all the database changes into setup/db/db/schema-410to420.sql. I have tested on devcloud and our testing enviroment, it is ok. -Wei 2013/5/31 Wido den Hollander > Hi Wei, > > > On 05/30/2013 05:47 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I would like to merge disk_io_stat branch into

Re: [DISCUSS] We have a videographer. What videos do we want to make?

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:05:56AM -0700, Jessica Tomechak wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Chip Childers > wrote: > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 01:12:40PM -0700, Jessica Tomechak wrote: > > > Now Urgent!! Gregg will be starting in just a couple of weeks. Last year, > > > we churned for

Re: [MERGE] diso_io_stat branch into MASTER

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 02:16:31PM +0200, Wido den Hollander wrote: > > Shouldn't there be a creation of the tables in create-schema.sql as > well? This is for newly created clusters. > Think Wei is right on this one - we froze create-schema.sql at 4.0 See: https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/da

Re: StoragePoolForMigrationResponse and StoragePoolResponse

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:24:20PM +, Pranav Saxena wrote: > Hey Prasanna , > > I see that the response object name is > findstoragepoolsformigrationresponse , which is correct as shown > below . Are you referring to this API or something else ? > > http://MSIP:8096/client/api?command=fin

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

Hi Wei, On 05/30/2013 06:03 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote: Hi, I would like to merge disk_io_throttling branch into master. If nobody object, I will merge into master in 48 hours. The purpose is : Virtual machines are running on the same storage device (local storage or share strage). Because of the rate

RE: StoragePoolForMigrationResponse and StoragePoolResponse

Hey Prasanna , I see that the response object name is findstoragepoolsformigrationresponse , which is correct as shown below . Are you referring to this API or something else ? http://MSIP:8096/client/api?command=findStoragePoolsForMigration Thanks, Pranav -Original Message- F

Re: [MERGE] diso_io_stat branch into MASTER

Hi Wei, On 05/30/2013 05:47 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote: Hi, I would like to merge disk_io_stat branch into master. If nobody object, I will merge into master in 48 hours. I tried reviewing the whole patch and I mainly focused on the KVM side since that's what I know most about. Code wise it seems

Re: maintenance mode for secondary storage?

ok, I did a quick read. But first; should this be in the 4.x docs and is it worth a jira issue? The procedure seems simple but lengthy and for that reason error prone. I think some automation could help. I see several decisions on our path. - shall we let cloudstack do the copying? - shall we let

StoragePoolForMigrationResponse and StoragePoolResponse

For most storage pool related operations I see the standard StoragePoolResponse. But when using findStoragePoolForMigration the response is StoragePoolForMigrationResponse. The only difference, I see, between the two is an additional suitableForMigration flag. Should we be maintaining two kinds of

[ACS42]CLOUDSTACK-681: Dedicated Resources - Explicit Dedication, Private zone, pod, cluster or host

Hi, This is regarding the feature that is committed to the master recently (CLOUDSTACK-681: Dedicated Resources - Explicit Dedication, Private zone, pod, cluster or host) . I have created the setup using latest 4.2 RPM's . In my setup all the API calls related to this feature are failing sayi

Re: [DISCUSS] Disaster Recovery solution for CloudStack

On 05/31/2013 11:02 AM, Nguyen Anh Tu wrote: Hi forks, I'm looking for a Disaster Recovery solution on CS. Looking around I found an article showing some great informations but not enought. Personally I think: + Host: CS already implemented migration, which can move VMs to another pearful host

Re: Review Request: FIxed CLOUDSTACK-2783: listHypervisorCapabilities API response to include all the fields

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11564/#review21245 --- LGTM - Prasanna Santhanam On May 31, 2013, 9:05 a.m., Srikanteswa

Review Request: FIxed CLOUDSTACK-2783: listHypervisorCapabilities API response to include all the fields

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11564/ --- Review request for cloudstack, Devdeep Singh, Prasanna Santhanam, and Koushik Da

[DISCUSS] Disaster Recovery solution for CloudStack

Hi forks, I'm looking for a Disaster Recovery solution on CS. Looking around I found an article showing some great informations but not enought. Personally I think: + Host: CS already implemented migration, which can move VMs to another pearful host + Database: we have replication + Management Se

Re: RPM building tests in jenkins

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Prasanna Santhanam wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:51:12AM -0400, David Nalley wrote: >> Hi folks: >> >> I came across an interesting problem today, and think it's one that >> deserves fixing. >> >> I looked at our jenkins config and found that we build package

Re: [MERGE] diso_io_stat branch into MASTER

Hi Wido, I checked the source code. For RBD network devices, it should work well. In com.cloud.hypervisor.kvm.resource.LibvirtComputingResource.createVbd(Connect, VirtualMachineTO, String, LibvirtVMDef) disk.defNetworkBasedDisk(physicalDisk.getPath().replace("rbd:", "") so disk.getPath() ret

Re: maintenance mode for secondary storage?

Looks like the section went missing in our 4.0 guides. But it's there with the header: "Changing secondary storage" in http://download.cloud.com/releases/3.0.0/CloudStack3.0AdminGuide.pdf On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:39:00AM +0200, Daan Hoogland wrote: > I've searched cloudstack.apache.org for 'se

Re: maintenance mode for secondary storage?

I've searched cloudstack.apache.org for 'secondary storage maintenance'. The procedure didn't catch my eye. Does anybody have a link for me? Thanks Daan On 31 May 2013 09:59, "Daan Hoogland" wrote: > Exactly, > > I am not to familiar with cloudstack, yet. I will study the present > procedure an

Re: maintenance mode for secondary storage?

Exactly, I am not to familiar with cloudstack, yet. I will study the present procedure and do a suggestion in this thread. Regards Daan On 31 May 2013 07:31, "Prasanna Santhanam" wrote: > The current way of altering secondary storage is error prone. So +1 > to your maintenance proposal. > > We

Re: https://reviews.apache.org/r/9539/

Hi Wido, Thanks! Harikrishna has created a clone of this issue, and already committed new patch for 4.1 branch. Thanks him. JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2180 Review: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10772/ -Wei 2013/5/31 Wido den Hollander > Hi Wei, > > > On 05/31/2013

Re: https://reviews.apache.org/r/9539/

Hi Wei, On 05/31/2013 09:25 AM, Wei Zhou wrote: Abhinandan, Thanks! I have committed it to 4.0 branch. The agreement is that no commits to both the 4.0 or 4.1 branches are made without going through Joe Brockmeier (4.0) or Chip Childers (4.1). 4.0 is a released version (4.0.2) and there i

Re: Review Request: Fixed CLOUDSTACK-2662 Preferred implicit dedication fails with insufficient capacity even if shared hosts are available.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11510/#review21243 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Prachi Damle On May 31, 2013, 2:51 a.m., Raj

Re: Review Request: Fixed CLOUDSTACK-2662 Preferred implicit dedication fails with insufficient capacity even if shared hosts are available.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11510/#review21242 --- Commit af4177b86cd10b9216f07266ad5d85b22d59eb61 in branch refs/heads

RE: https://reviews.apache.org/r/9539/

Abhinandan, Thanks! I have committed it to 4.0 branch. Kind Regards, Wei ZHOU Innovation Engineer Cloud, LeaseWeb B.V. w.z...@leaseweb.com From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:cloudst...@aprateek.com] Sent: 24 May 2013 07:13 To: Wei Zhou Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Sub

Re: [DISCUSS] Baremetal and UCS UI when to check in

On 05/30/2013 10:33 PM, Chip Childers wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:19:53PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: As you may recall we had disabled Baremetal in 4.1 and master because of blocker issues. Frank unfortunately has been tied up with $dayjob responsibilities and now plans to start

Re: [DISCUSS] We have a videographer. What videos do we want to make?

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:05:56AM -0700, Jessica Tomechak wrote: > > Top 10 interesting clouds people have set up > This one gets a +1 from me. I'd love to see this and any new user would too. Hear it from the horse's mouth. -- Prasanna., Powered by BigRock.com

Re: [DISCUSS] We have a videographer. What videos do we want to make?

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 01:12:40PM -0700, Jessica Tomechak wrote: > > Now Urgent!! Gregg will be starting in just a couple of weeks. Last year, > > we churned for several weeks after his arrival. Let's avoid that this > time. > > > > What do

Re: RPM building tests in jenkins

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:51:12AM -0400, David Nalley wrote: > Hi folks: > > I came across an interesting problem today, and think it's one that > deserves fixing. > > I looked at our jenkins config and found that we build packages in a > manner that is different from how our documentation tells