Re: [XenServer] meltdown-spectre

PLD, One thing to add to your testing is template management. When I was doing all the Packer stuff with XS 6.5 and 7, ACS needed to know if the template was PV or HVM to provision properly. No idea if the ACS template logic has changed since then, but something to be aware of. >From a performanc

Re: [XenServer] meltdown-spectre

Hi. Every kind of virtualization is affected according to qemu developers. 9 янв. 2018 г. 9:32 пользователь "Pierre-Luc Dion" написал: > Hi, > > From recent blog post, I've read that system using full virtualization such > as KVM, VMware or Xen-HVM are not affected? Anyhow, from the latest hot

[XenServer] meltdown-spectre

Hi, >From recent blog post, I've read that system using full virtualization such as KVM, VMware or Xen-HVM are not affected? Anyhow, from the latest hotfix of XenServer 7.1cu1 hf8, it look like they systematically convert VM from PV to HVM, so in the case of a VM stop/start by CloudStack, a PV v

Re: Performance considerations related to Intel Meltdown on KVM CPU types

Thanks for sharing On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:11 AM Nux! wrote: > Hello, > > Just stumbled upon this > https://twitter.com/berrange/status/950209752486817792 > > "ensure KVM guest CPU model you choose has the "pcid" feature, otherwise > guests will suffer terrible performance from the Meltdown fix

Re: Performance considerations related to Intel Meltdown on KVM CPU types

Thanks for sharing this Nux! PL On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Nux! wrote: > Hello, > > Just stumbled upon this > https://twitter.com/berrange/status/950209752486817792 > > "ensure KVM guest CPU model you choose has the "pcid" feature, otherwise > guests will suffer terrible performance from

Re: [DISCUSS] new way of github working

This might be my lack of expertise in Git (Github). I like the merge commits (when merging a PR) because I can easily find the date when something has been introduced to the code base. Of course, this can also be achieved through Jira tickets and Github PRs history. This means I would not mind adop

Re: [DISCUSS] new way of github working

Marc-Aurèle and Rafael, I mean both. I know we used to require the first, to create the release notes in a concise way and we used to ban the other because it leads to unnavigable revision trees. But now that squash and merge is a functionality of github one might argue that it doesn’t matter an

Re: [GitHub] rhtyd commented on issue #2298: CLOUDSTACK-9620: Enhancements for managed storage

Sounds good. I can start those tests up. It typically takes a couple days to run them all. > On Jan 8, 2018, at 11:44 AM, GitBox wrote: > > rhtyd commented on issue #2298: CLOUDSTACK-9620: Enhancements for managed > storage > URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2298#issuecomment-356

RE: Release Notes

Perfect. Thanks for confirming. 👍 On Jan 8, 2018 11:26 AM, "Paul Angus" wrote: Thanks Will, this works great! Kind regards, Paul Angus paul.an...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com @shapeblue *From:* williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Will Ste

RE: Release Notes

Thanks Will, this works great! Kind regards, Paul Angus From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Will Stevens Sent: 03 January 2018 19:32 To: Paul Angus Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: Release Notes Paul, Please note that this tool only consid

Re: [DISCUSS] new way of github working

The same as Rafael described. If it is the second case I would prefer rebasing the target branch and push force instead of including merge commits in a PR Obtener Outlook para Android From: williamstev...@gmail.com on behalf of Will Steve

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

+1 Daan and Rohit Khosrow Moossavi Cloud Infrastructure Developer t 514.447.3456 On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:58 AM, Boris Stoyanov wrote: > Yes let’s do that. > > > boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK >

Performance considerations related to Intel Meltdown on KVM CPU types

Hello, Just stumbled upon this https://twitter.com/berrange/status/950209752486817792 "ensure KVM guest CPU model you choose has the "pcid" feature, otherwise guests will suffer terrible performance from the Meltdown fixes. This means using a named Haswell, Broadwell or Skylake based model or h

Re: [DISCUSS] new way of github working

Just a note Daan. If a PR is merged with the `git pr ` tool in our utilities folder, it will automatically include the merge commit. Figured I should mention that... *Will Stevens* CTO On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Marc-Aurèle Brothier wrote: > Same opinion as R

Re: [DISCUSS] new way of github working

Same opinion as Rafael described. On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Rafael Weingärtner < rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote: > I did not fully understand what you meant. > > Are you talking about the merge commit that can be created when a PR is > merged? Or, are you talking about a merge commit t

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

Yes let’s do that. boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com  www.shapeblue.com 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue > On 8 Jan 2018, at 14:41, Wido den Hollander wrote: > > > > On 01/08/2018 01:30 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote: >> All, >> Thank you everyone for your feedback. Give

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

On 01/08/2018 01:30 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote: All, Thank you everyone for your feedback. Given we're in agreement with Daan's proposal, I'll summarize and add strategy: - We'll freeze the 4.11 milestone to only these 9 PRs: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/milestone/3 - In addition, onl

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

On 01/08/2018 01:30 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote: > Does this look agreeable? Thanks. +1

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

+1 On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote: > All, > > > Thank you everyone for your feedback. Given we're in agreement with Daan's > proposal, I'll summarize and add strategy: > > > - We'll freeze the 4.11 milestone to only these 9 PRs: > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/mileston

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

All, Thank you everyone for your feedback. Given we're in agreement with Daan's proposal, I'll summarize and add strategy: - We'll freeze the 4.11 milestone to only these 9 PRs: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/milestone/3 - In addition, only blocker, test fixes, and release/packaging re

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

slow display of arrogance in reacting this time ; yeeaahhh On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Voloshanenko Igor < igor.voloshane...@gmail.com> wrote: > You again faster than me ))) > > 2018-01-08 12:21 GMT+02:00 Voloshanenko Igor >: > > > :D tnx ) > > Updated by my colleague already > > > > 2018-0

Re: [DISCUSS] new way of github working

I did not fully understand what you meant. Are you talking about the merge commit that can be created when a PR is merged? Or, are you talking about a merge commit that is added to a PR when a conflict is solved by its author(s)? I do not have problems with the first type of merge commits. Howev

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

You again faster than me ))) 2018-01-08 12:21 GMT+02:00 Voloshanenko Igor : > :D tnx ) > Updated by my colleague already > > 2018-01-08 12:06 GMT+02:00 Daan Hoogland : > >> yeah, way ahead of you Igor ;) I asked a question about it >> >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Voloshanenko Igor < >> igo

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

:D tnx ) Updated by my colleague already 2018-01-08 12:06 GMT+02:00 Daan Hoogland : > yeah, way ahead of you Igor ;) I asked a question about it > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Voloshanenko Igor < > igor.voloshane...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Updates posted to https://github.com/apache/cloudst

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

yeah, way ahead of you Igor ;) I asked a question about it On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Voloshanenko Igor < igor.voloshane...@gmail.com> wrote: > Updates posted to https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2389 > Can you please review? > > 2018-01-08 11:57 GMT+02:00 Voloshanenko Igor >: > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

Updates posted to https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2389 Can you please review? 2018-01-08 11:57 GMT+02:00 Voloshanenko Igor : > Sure. Got it. > > Will post update soon > > 2018-01-08 11:38 GMT+02:00 Daan Hoogland : > >> Igor, I remember your PR and think it is fine. It can also be argued

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

Hi Rohit +1 We will work hard to address recent comments posted to https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2097 for generalized Config Drive support and hope to get that into 4.11 ! Kris On 8 January 2018 at 08:47, Rohit Yadav wrote: > All, > > > As per the previously shared schedule [1],

Re: [DISCUSS] new way of github working

Hi On 01/08/2018 10:45 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > Devs, > > I see a lot of merge master to branch commits appearing on PRs. This is > against prior (non-hard) agreements on how we work. It is getting to be the > daily practice so; > How do we feel about > 1. not using merge commits anymore? > 2.

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

On 01/08/2018 09:47 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote: Rohit, Ivan, I think we can argue that the five open PRs on the milestone can still go in as long as active work on them continues. I have not looked at Ivan's PRs yet but can see they were entered in december and he is actively working on it so why

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

Sure. Got it. Will post update soon 2018-01-08 11:38 GMT+02:00 Daan Hoogland : > Igor, I remember your PR and think it is fine. It can also be argued that > it needs to go in as a security feature. For an RM it is unthinkably late, > but fortunately it is very small. I will however -1 it if it l

[DISCUSS] new way of github working

Devs, I see a lot of merge master to branch commits appearing on PRs. This is against prior (non-hard) agreements on how we work. It is getting to be the daily practice so; How do we feel about 1. not using merge commits anymore? 2. merging back as a way of solving conflicts? and Do we need to mak

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

On 01/08/2018 09:47 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > Rohit, Ivan, > > I think we can argue that the five open PRs on the milestone can still go > in as long as active work on them continues. I have not looked at Ivan's > PRs yet but can see they were entered in december and he is actively > working on i

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

Igor, I remember your PR and think it is fine. It can also be argued that it needs to go in as a security feature. For an RM it is unthinkably late, but fortunately it is very small. I will however -1 it if it leads to a plethora of last minute PRs to include. On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Volo

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

Guys, can we please include https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2389 into 4.11 PR very small and updates will be published in next few hours. As we have this for a while in production for 4.8 branch. 2018-01-08 11:15 GMT+02:00 Boris Stoyanov : > +1 Daan > > > boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com >

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

+1 Daan boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com  www.shapeblue.com 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue > On 8 Jan 2018, at 10:47, Daan Hoogland wrote: > > Rohit, Ivan, > > I think we can argue that the five open PRs on the milestone can still go > in as long as active wor

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

Rohit, Ivan, I think we can argue that the five open PRs on the milestone can still go in as long as active work on them continues. I have not looked at Ivan's PRs yet but can see they were entered in december and he is actively working on it so why not include those in the milestone. A bigger con

Support MHz resource limit and accounting for VM instances for accounts and domains

Hello, community. We are going to implement the feature which enables limiting accounts and domains for cumulative MHz available. Thus creating VMs will take that limit into account calculating VM MHz as core_count * core_frequency. May be some other people wanted a feature like that or have consi

Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11

Rohit, Devs, just consider adding: CLOUDSTACK-10188 / https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2362 [resouce accounting blocker bug] CLOUDSTACK-10170 / https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2350 [security fix, enchancement] They are ready (we think so) for some time, but *no final review* y