Re: [ACS44] help on 4.4.1 wanted

Hi Daan, I moved 5724,5744, 5753, 5910, 5975 to 'Future' I am working 6634. However, this wont affect the release cycle as this is a doc bug. I see that around 30 in the filter are also documentation bugs. You might want to filter them out. I will try to take a look at few more over the weekend.

Jenkins build is still unstable: simulator-singlerun #82

See

Jenkins build is still unstable: simulator-singlerun #81

See

Jenkins build is still unstable: simulator-singlerun #80

See

Jenkins build is still unstable: simulator-singlerun #79

See

Re: What is the behaviour of VPC Reset?

Hi Alena, Thanks for quick response. But, I do not see any code that makes a call to delete the rules and reapplies it. If it reapplies how does it get the information for each tier to reapply the ACLs. I see that just shutdownVpc() API call is made and VPCVRElement just invokes destroyRouter...

Re: What is the behaviour of VPC Reset?

Suresh, Yes, it does. All the rules for all the networks inside the VPC, are being reapplied on the VPC VR after its up. I don¹t see it being documented neither in the FS, nor in the API itself. Please file a CS doc bug on that. -Alena. On 8/7/14, 3:40 PM, "Suresh Ramamurthy" wrote: >Hi Alena

Jenkins build is still unstable: simulator-singlerun #78

See

Re: Getting "Refusing to design this network, the physical isolation type is not MIDO" while deploying a VM with new network from UI

I think this is where your problem is: 2014-08-06 21:42:23,476 DEBUG [c.c.d.DeploymentPlanningManagerImpl] (API-Job-Executor-2:ctx-e92d4da4 job-420 ctx-8546dbd9) Checking resources in Cluster: 1 under Pod: 1 2014-08-06 21:42:23,477 DEBUG [c.c.a.m.a.i.FirstFitAllocator] (API-Job-Executor-2:ctx-e92d

What is the behaviour of VPC Reset?

Hi Alena, Sheng Yang, Could you please shed some light on the behaviour of VPC Reset functionality? When I went through the code, VPC Reset shuts down the VR and restarts it. Does it also clean all ACL, NAT etc associated to all the tiers in the VPC and then reconfigure the current value? Is the

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

This is what I was wondering about, as well. It seems all of our 'master' problems become 'develop' problems. I do like the idea of merging versus cherry picking (as a general rule), though. On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: > Sebastian, ad

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

Sebastian, addressing the following comment of yours "The main issue with master right now is that it moves really fast as a shared branch, people merge features without warning, we see regressions etc.. By the time we release a major version, master has moved so much that it feels like starting

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

Erik, addressing "What's the downside of having master represent the latest released version?² No real downside (rather than the pain when it comes to managing maintenance releases for earlier versions of CS), but what are the advantages really? If you are the user who wants to get the latest st

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

Any process is better than what is being used right now. git-flow is just a proven process that is working for folks who use it. That is a fact. git-flow somewhat enforces a process, especially if you use the git-flow plugin: git flow feature start 2345-eye-candy git flow feature publish etc, e

Re: issues remaining for 4.4.1

CloudStack is a huge project. That being the case, I'm personally not overly concerned about the number of open tickets in JIRA. As far as we know, none of them is a blocker. I'd only be concerned if a substantial number of these tickets are "Critical" in nature. I worked on a SAN technology at HP

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: > Daan, thank you. Please see my comments inline. > > > On 8/7/14, 1:19 PM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote: > > >On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Alena Prokharchyk > > wrote: > >> Plus if you read the discussion below

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

On Aug 7, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Alena Prokharchyk wrote: > > > On 8/7/14, 1:42 PM, "Sebastien Goasguen" wrote: > >> >> On Aug 7, 2014, at 8:33 AM, David Nalley wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Sebastien Goasguen >>> wrote: On Aug 6, 2014, at 7:15 PM, David Nalley wr

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

I admit that I'm a bit confused, as well, regarding the value of 'master' if it only points to the most recently released version of CloudStack. If you want the most recently released version, you can just go back in time - as necessary - to arrive at the applicable commit. I think the problem we

[CLOUDSTACK-6114][GSoC] End of second term approaching

Hi All, Giving a very brief overview of everything that has been done. If any questions or expansion is wanted please reply back. TL;DR "vagrant up" for: Cloudstack basic zone from source, Cloudstack advanced zone from source, Cloudstack Simulator, Cloudstack binary installation and configuration

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

On 8/7/14, 1:42 PM, "Sebastien Goasguen" wrote: > >On Aug 7, 2014, at 8:33 AM, David Nalley wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Sebastien Goasguen >>wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 6, 2014, at 7:15 PM, David Nalley wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Alena Prokharchyk wrote

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

Daan, thank you. Please see my comments inline. On 8/7/14, 1:19 PM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote: >On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Alena Prokharchyk > wrote: >> Plus if you read the discussion below the article, you will see that >> people agree that this model doesn’t work well for the case when the

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

On Aug 7, 2014, at 8:33 AM, David Nalley wrote: > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: >> >> On Aug 6, 2014, at 7:15 PM, David Nalley wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Alena Prokharchyk >>> wrote: Edison, thank you for raising the concern about the BVT/

Re: issues remaining for 4.4.1

Marcus, Edison, Can you have a look? It looks alright by me, but I have no time/env to test. thanks, Daan On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Simon Weller wrote: > Daan, > > I have a patch in reviewboard for CLOUDSTACK-6460. > > https://reviews.apache.org/r/22939/ > > - Si > ___

Re: Review Request 22939: CLOUDSTACK-6460 - CLVM primary storage migration fails due to incorrect identification of source format.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/22939/#review49947 --- plugins/hypervisors/kvm/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/kvm/storage/Libvir

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Alena Prokharchyk wrote: > Plus if you read the discussion below the article, you will see that > people agree that this model doesn’t work well for the case when the > product support maintenance for older releases, like CS does. Not at all, Alena. I don't agree t

RE: Unable to add host exception

I think it was the problem with the firewall. -Original Message- From: Amogh Vasekar [mailto:amogh.vase...@citrix.com] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 3:00 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: Unable to add host exception Firewall may be? Can you telnet to the mentioned IP and

[GSoC] End of second term approaching

Hi all, With the second term of GSOC coming to an end I thought I'd update you on what I've been doing since my last email. Ec2stack user profiles can now be configured / used in a similar way to gstack. You can configure a profile of your choice with the optional -p or --profile flag at configur

Re: Unable to add host exception

Firewall may be? Can you telnet to the mentioned IP and port? Amogh On 8/7/14 11:43 AM, "Elapavuluri, Jaya" wrote: >I am trying to add a KVM host on to the Management server. However, I am >getting an error while adding the host. It says unable to add the host. > >The log at the management serv

Re: Unable to add host exception

Is there a firewall between? Check that mgmt server listen on port 8250 and that the kvm host can connect to it Erik 7. aug. 2014 20:44 skrev "Elapavuluri, Jaya" følgende: > I am trying to add a KVM host on to the Management server. However, I am > getting an error while adding the host. It say

Unable to add host exception

I am trying to add a KVM host on to the Management server. However, I am getting an error while adding the host. It says unable to add the host. The log at the management server says: Discovery exception error code list for exceptions WARN [o.a.c.a.c.a.h.AddHostCmd] (1690201491@qtp-794886538-14:

Re: [PROPOSAL] Solving the cherry-picking problem

Hi Min, On 07-Aug-2014, at 7:22 pm, Min Chen wrote: > Hi Rohit, > > IMHO, the root cause for RM cherry-pick problem is code quality. Without > solving that first based on some kind of enforcement, this will not help > much. The reason to use forward branch and RM cherry-picking is to control > w

Jenkins build is still unstable: simulator-singlerun #77

See

Re: [DB-CHANGE] Infrastructure tab fails to load with db exception

That is true. It was not my intent to address that problem, though. I was simply commenting on the question of whether we should continue to use the [DB-CHANGE] e-mail tag (I believe we should). On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Rajani Karuturi wrote: > Don’t you think we are overlooking the act

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

Plus if you read the discussion below the article, you will see that people agree that this model doesn’t work well for the case when the product support maintenance for older releases, like CS does. "I think this model does not work for bugfixing in older releases, though. It messes up the neat o

Re: [PROPOSAL] Solving the cherry-picking problem

Hi Rohit, IMHO, the root cause for RM cherry-pick problem is code quality. Without solving that first based on some kind of enforcement, this will not help much. The reason to use forward branch and RM cherry-picking is to control what can go to release branch. Your proposal removed that p

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

Not quite. That’s what the article suggests: "If you want to fix bugs for older releases or do any other develop there, you will fork a support branch from the appropriate commit in master (you will have all versions ever created there). These branches are just started and not intended to be merge

List APIs Behavior

I want to understand the output of the list APIs when the entity is not present / deleted. Suppose I create an account, create a network within it and acquire a public IP address in the network. 1) ListPublicIpAddresses - public ip id passed, returns public IP 2) ListPublicIpAddresses - account,

Jenkins build is still unstable: simulator-singlerun #76

See

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

I'm not sure what to think about this discussion any more. But in response to Sebastien's request for thoughts I was originally very excited about a git-flow solution because of some very specific things: * Create a branch for everything. This is amazingly useful for a number of reasons: ** It su

Re: FreeBSD

I am using Cloudstack 4.4 | FreeBSD 9.3, however, choosing other 64-bit and installing the 64-bit of FreeBSD 10 or 9.3 hangs at boot.  --  mo Sent with Airmail On August 7, 2014 at 11:45:57 AM, Osay Osman Yuuni (oyu...@gmail.com) wrote: "... currently testing CS 4.4 with XenServer, although I

Re: [ACS44] release 4.4.1

Daan, apart from the template issues, which I believe were already solved, are there any other issues with KVM that might prevent one to upgrade? I was planning to upgrade this this weekend, but are now considering postponing the upgrade. Thanks -- Andrei Mikhailovsky Director Arhont Inform

RE: issues remaining for 4.4.1

Will look at it tomorow at the latest biligual spelling checker used.read at your own risk Op 7 aug. 2014 15:32 schreef "Simon Weller" : > Daan, > > I have a patch in reviewboard for CLOUDSTACK-6460. > > https://reviews.apache.org/r/22939/ > > - Si > > Fro

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

Alena, Check this out and see if it would resolve your concern regarding maintaining multiple releases http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16562339/git-flow-and-master-with-multiple-parallel-release-branches git-flow uses support branches to support releases that are not on master. On Wed, A

RE: issues remaining for 4.4.1

Daan, I have a patch in reviewboard for CLOUDSTACK-6460. https://reviews.apache.org/r/22939/ - Si From: Daan Hoogland Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 3:53 AM To: dev Subject: issues remaining for 4.4.1 H, have a look at https://issues.apache.org/jira

Re: [PROPOSAL] Solving the cherry-picking problem

Hi Hari, You’ve a valid concern, but on master when we’re pushing bugfixes for multiple issues the RM eventually picks them to release branch anyway. At the end of the day, usage of automated tests, build/unit tests will ensure some quality control. This proposal will solve issues for RM (the c

[ACS44] help on 4.4.1 wanted

H all, There are 6 issues marked as fixVersion 4.4.1 but also 106 with affectedVersion 4.4.0. Can all of you please weed through those/help triage them. I feel like I am alone in the desert and at the same time looking at a forest from between the trees, i.e. helpless Please help me get something

Re: [PROPOSAL] Solving the cherry-picking problem

Hi David, On 07-Aug-2014, at 2:37 pm, David Nalley wrote: > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I think the following can solve the cherry-picking problem but it needs >> everyone’s support to work: >> >> - Once a release branch is cut out, all the committers and co

Re: [ACS44] release 4.4.1

depends on what you are using Xerex. Not for KVM it seems and there are some problems with the xen sytemvm. On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Xerex Bueno wrote: > Is 4.4.0 more reliable/stable than 4.3? > > > > > On 8/6/14, 3:54 AM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote: > >>People, >> >>Since there are some pro

Re: [PROPOSAL] Solving the cherry-picking problem

Hari, if we merge we can no longer distinguish between minor and trivial or major till block. And we shouldn't as we validate any staging branch periodically before merging. On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Harikrishna Patnala wrote: > Hi Rohit, > Thanks for the proposal. > > I’ve some concerns.

Re: [ACS44] release 4.4.1

Is 4.4.0 more reliable/stable than 4.3? On 8/6/14, 3:54 AM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote: >People, > >Since there are some problems in 4.4.0 I am planning a bugfix release. > >I created a wiki page for it. This only contains dates so far. I am >offline starting the 16th so I want to have it out by t

Re: [PROPOSAL] Solving the cherry-picking problem

Hi Rohit, Thanks for the proposal. I’ve some concerns. If we work directly on release branch only (with out forward branch) I’m not sure how we control regressions in the release time. In case of forward branch cut from the release branch RMs will merge only critical bug fixes to release branc

Re: [PROPOSAL] Solving the cherry-picking problem

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote: > Hi, > > I think the following can solve the cherry-picking problem but it needs > everyone’s support to work: > > - Once a release branch is cut out, all the committers and contributors > “should” only work on the release branch. It can be dis

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: > > On Aug 6, 2014, at 7:15 PM, David Nalley wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Alena Prokharchyk >> wrote: >>> Edison, thank you for raising the concern about the BVT/CI. Somebody >>> mentioned earlier that we should separate gi

GRE Tunnel can not decapsulate and forward pkts

Hi all, I have used CS4.4+OVS for GRE tunnel tests, Use two hosts: host1 and host2 create vm1 on host1, vm2 on host2, VR is created on host1 Result: OVSTunnel117 is created on host1 and host2 with gre port and options remote_ip, this is the expectation result But vm2 can not be assigned ip by VR A

GRE Tunnel can not decapsulate and forward pkts

Hi all, I have used CS4.4+OVS for GRE tunnel tests, Use two hosts: host1 and host2 create vm1 on host1, vm2 on host2, VR is created on host1 Result: OVSTunnel117 is created on host1 and host2 with gre port and options remote_ip, this is the expectation result But vm2 can not be assigned ip by VR A

Jenkins build is still unstable: simulator-singlerun #75

See

[DISCUSS] reviewer process guide amended

Folks please look at the following Fixing things for folks In short, please don't. If non-committers have a patch 95% of the way - comment and tell them what is necessary to make the patch acceptable. Let them fix their own patch and resubmit. Yes you can probably fix things more quickly, but it

RE: [VOTE] git workflow

Daan, +1 for having stable master branch wherein we bring only tested "development" branches into master. -1 against having a shadow branches to stable/master and pushing changes into stable based on just CI test runs. I agree it is better than what we have currently. But does not solve/a

Jenkins build is still unstable: simulator-singlerun #74

See

Re: [PROPOSAL] Solving the cherry-picking problem

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote: > > On 07-Aug-2014, at 11:23 am, Rajani Karuturi wrote: > > > Hi Rohit, > > Thanks for the proposal. > > > > I do not agree to the third point that RM should keep merging to master. > We > > could do that at the end of the release with a single

Re: [PROPOSAL] Solving the cherry-picking problem

On 07-Aug-2014, at 11:23 am, Rajani Karuturi wrote: > Hi Rohit, > Thanks for the proposal. > > I do not agree to the third point that RM should keep merging to master. We > could do that at the end of the release with a single merge. By landing changes from release to master, we get continuous

Jenkins build is still unstable: simulator-singlerun #73

See

Re: [PROPOSAL] Solving the cherry-picking problem

Hi Rohit, Thanks for the proposal. I do not agree to the third point that RM should keep merging to master. We could do that at the end of the release with a single merge. That said, its definitely better than what we currently do and hence a +1 from me. On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Rohit Y

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

Raja, On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Raja Pullela wrote: > If we are using "Development" branch as a shadow branch for "Stable" - is not > worth going that route because the existing automation may not find all the > issues. As a result, "Stable" is not completely protected from breakage or

RE: [VOTE] git workflow

If we are using "Development" branch as a shadow branch for "Stable" - is not worth going that route because the existing automation may not find all the issues. As a result, "Stable" is not completely protected from breakage or failure. "Stable" should have the last stable released code. "Dev

Re: Review Request 24378: CLOUDSTACK-7268: Ignore "already exists" error in createEgressFirewallRule

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/24378/#review49884 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Santhosh Edukulla On Aug. 7, 2014, 7:41 a.m.

Re: Review Request 24378: CLOUDSTACK-7268: Ignore "already exists" error in createEgressFirewallRule

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/24378/#review49885 --- Commit 7ff7e9cf5ae4d5ababa0bf7e7ccb4a8cb1064045 in cloudstack's bran

issues remaining for 4.4.1

H, have a look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6358?filter=12328007 It is a disappointing 280+ list of issues with 4.4 but I think a lot of them can be marked as won't solve, future releases or resolved. Please help me weed through these. thanks, -- Daan

Re: [PROPOSAL] Solving the cherry-picking problem

Ah, an even smaller proposal then mine, good. On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote: > Hi, > > I think the following can solve the cherry-picking problem but it needs > everyone’s support to work: > > - Once a release branch is cut out, all the committers and contributors > “should

[PROPOSAL] Solving the cherry-picking problem

Hi, I think the following can solve the cherry-picking problem but it needs everyone’s support to work: - Once a release branch is cut out, all the committers and contributors “should” only work on the release branch. It can be discussed if we want to work on it directly or branch out on it an

Jenkins build is unstable: simulator-singlerun #72

See

Re: Review Request 24383: CLOUDSTACK-7271: Accept any hypervisor in error message for integration.smoke.test_deploy_vm_root_resize.TestDeployVM.test_00_deploy_vm_root_resize

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/24383/#review49883 --- Commit 5f816e3e3fcee259fbdd2153d72625254126ba25 in cloudstack's bran

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

I am not for grand proposals so I don't agree that we should first make an inventory of all problems. The idea that we are going to do CI on a staging branch I take for a fact for the moment. Given that I would like to propose that we: work on a 'development' branch. merge on a nightly basis to a

Re: [DB-CHANGE] Infrastructure tab fails to load with db exception

We are but the solution seems to be to complicated for us. I think we should go to a model of per commit migrations. (and maybe even downgrades) Any answer on my sysvm question? On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Rajani Karuturi wrote: > Don’t you think we are overlooking the actual problem of hand

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

Hey, On 07-Aug-2014, at 9:22 am, Leo Simons wrote: > On Aug 7, 2014, at 8:40 AM, Animesh Chaturvedi > wrote: >>> (Like most of the internet...) I strongly believe using cherry picks as the >>> basic >>> tool for (release) branch management is one of the worst choices you can >>> make. >>> >>>

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

Here is where we stand: 1-We have a successful VOTE that got derailed after the voting period ended with a few -1 -> Since we should have a strong consensus on this that means that the VOTE is canned and folks who want a change are send back to the drawing board. 2-The main concerns I can see f

Re: Review Request 24378: CLOUDSTACK-7268: Ignore "already exists" error in createEgressFirewallRule

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/24378/ --- (Updated Aug. 7, 2014, 7:41 a.m.) Review request for cloudstack and Santhosh Ed

Re: Review Request 24378: CLOUDSTACK-7268: Ignore "already exists" error in createEgressFirewallRule

> On Aug. 7, 2014, 7:21 a.m., Santhosh Edukulla wrote: > > tools/marvin/marvin/lib/base.py, line 350 > > > > > > may be to keep simple check if not string in e.. and raise, pass can be > > removed. As well, is the exc

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

On Aug 6, 2014, at 7:15 PM, David Nalley wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Alena Prokharchyk > wrote: >> Edison, thank you for raising the concern about the BVT/CI. Somebody >> mentioned earlier that we should separate git workflow implementation from >> the CI effort, but I do think we

Re: Review Request 24383: CLOUDSTACK-7271: Accept any hypervisor in error message for integration.smoke.test_deploy_vm_root_resize.TestDeployVM.test_00_deploy_vm_root_resize

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/24383/#review49878 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Santhosh Edukulla On Aug. 6, 2014, 2:57 p.m.

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

On Aug 7, 2014, at 8:40 AM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: >> (Like most of the internet...) I strongly believe using cherry picks as the >> basic >> tool for (release) branch management is one of the worst choices you can >> make. >> >> But. Please. Can. We. Just. Stop. Cherry. Picking!!! :-D [1]

Re: Review Request 24378: CLOUDSTACK-7268: Ignore "already exists" error in createEgressFirewallRule

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/24378/#review49877 --- tools/marvin/marvin/lib/base.py

Re: Review Request 24298: CLOUDSTACK-6873: Moved test cases that run only on simulator and those should be run serially to misc folder and also tagged them with required_hardware='simulator only'

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/24298/#review49874 --- Commit 1e3a689793278bb58a864a6fce266240f8f2c827 in cloudstack's bran

Re: abount usage-server config

cloudstack version is 4.2.1 于 2014/8/7 15:02, 李栋 写道: > *hi all:** > **We followed the document > (http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-administration/en/latest/usage.html) > configured usage-server and it worked > * > * > > then modify the global variable parameters, as follows: *

Re: [VOTE] git workflow

Animesh, cherry-picking from a single branch will cause conflicts in the long run (of two to three months) so it is a major problem with the way we release now. Also it will add the code and I was not convinced that merging was better until Leo showed me a history graph as example. With merging a l

abount usage-server config

*hi all:** **We followed the document (http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-administration/en/latest/usage.html) configured usage-server and it worked * * then modify the global variable parameters, as follows: * *But the usage of the database is still no data, there is only