RE: Server 2012 R2 Bug on CS 4.4.0 with vmware hypervisor

OK, so I 100% confirmed that the issue is with the controller type being used by cloudstack. Microsoft removed the drivers for the LSILogicParallel controller from server 2012 R2. As mentioned earlier the only reason the server even boots is because cloudstack is adding the boot drive as an IDE

RE: Server 2012 R2 Bug on CS 4.4.0 with vmware hypervisor

Hi Michael, further clarification; CS adds the data disk to the VM but since it's listed as SCSI device 0:0, the vm is unable to find it when you do a disk rescan. Yes, due to absence of LSI Logic Parallel driver in the guest, the virtual disk goes undetected. Currently for all data volumes,

[GitHub] cloudstack-docs pull request: Fixed some typos.

Github user runseb commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-docs/pull/7#issuecomment-63165218 Thanks a lot for the patch, much appreciated. Keep them coming :) --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on

Build failed in Jenkins: build-4.5 #138

See http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/build-4.5/138/changes Changes: [milamber] Update L10N resource files on master branch (with 4.5 translation strings) [milamber] Add 4.5.x messages.properties to Transifex config tool -- [...truncated 3514 lines...]

Re: [DISCUSS] Major business logic refactoring: Move from Account to UserAccount

I agree with Nitin. It will be cleaner to use the events table. Since cloudstack is concerned only about account, it makes sense to have only that information which is the owner field(and remove account_id, domain_id). I think, there is no auto purging or archival of events. Its the operator who

Build failed in Jenkins: cloudstack-4.3-maven-build #631

See http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/cloudstack-4.3-maven-build/631/changes Changes: [milamber] Update L10N strings from Transifex to repo (4.3 branch) -- Started by an SCM change [EnvInject] - Loading node environment variables. Building remotely on

Jenkins build became unstable: simulator-singlerun #638

See http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/simulator-singlerun/638/changes

Re: [DISCUSS] Major business logic refactoring: Move from Account to UserAccount

Hi, On 15-Nov-2014, at 2:27 pm, Rajani Karuturi raj...@apache.org wrote: I agree with Nitin. It will be cleaner to use the events table. Since cloudstack is concerned only about account, it makes sense to have only that information which is the owner field(and remove account_id,

Jenkins build is still unstable: simulator-singlerun #639

See http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/simulator-singlerun/changes

Re: [DISCUSS] Major business logic refactoring: Move from Account to UserAccount

Any idea on how many tables would be impacted by a decision for us to add the user ID directly into the tables (as opposed to relying on events)? Since we already have a domain_id and an account_id in certain tables, it might be better from a consistency standpoint to just add user_id to those

Re: [DISCUSS] Major business logic refactoring: Move from Account to UserAccount

Question - What happens to the already existing VMs with entries in the DB? Do we keep it NULL? Amogh On 11/15/14 8:41 AM, Mike Tutkowski mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com wrote: Any idea on how many tables would be impacted by a decision for us to add the user ID directly into the tables (as

Re: [DISCUSS] Major business logic refactoring: Move from Account to UserAccount

I would say, 'yes.' On Saturday, November 15, 2014, Amogh Vasekar amogh.vase...@citrix.com wrote: Question - What happens to the already existing VMs with entries in the DB? Do we keep it NULL? Amogh On 11/15/14 8:41 AM, Mike Tutkowski mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com javascript:; wrote:

Re: Review Request 27305: CLOUDSTACK-7810 : Fixed the script test_vpc_vm_life_cycle.py

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/27305/ --- (Updated Nov. 15, 2014, 11:04 p.m.) Review request for cloudstack and