Hi Chip,
If I could add my 10 cents worth.
I know of a number of potential CloudStack users who want to deploy CloudStack,
but ONLY when this feature is available as it is critical to their deployment
plans. One of them is actually looking at OpenStack as an alternative!
What I am also confus
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:10:44PM +, Geoff Higginbottom wrote:
> Hi Chip,
>
> If I could add my 10 cents worth.
>
> I know of a number of potential CloudStack users who want to deploy
> CloudStack, but ONLY when this feature is available as it is critical to
> their deployment plans. One
Half of our platforms are on 2.2.14 (advanced zone with security groups).
These platform work well. We are looking for a way to upgrade to 4.* for
more functionalities, so that we do not need to take the difference of
cloudstack version into account in development.
As I know, the citrix guys are w
3 8:28 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>
> Half of our platforms are on 2.2.14 (advanced zone with security groups).
> These platform work well. We are looking for a way to upgrade to 4.* for
> more funct
; > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:28 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
> >
> > Half of our platforms are on 2.2.14 (advanced zone with security groups).
> > These platform work well. We are looki
org
> > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
> >
> > Half of our platforms are on 2.2.14 (advanced zone with security groups).
> > These platform work well. We are looking for a way to upgrade to 4.* for
> > more functionalities, so
6 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Anthony Xu; Manan Shah; Angeline Shen; Alena Prokharchyk
> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>
> Adding relevant folks from previous discussions of this feature to the CC
> list.
>
> One other note... F
I'll work on 4.2, after that, people can merge it to 4.1.
Anthony
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:25 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.
uld always be upgradable
from previous releases. We can't strand our user base on a previous release.
--Alex
-Original Message-
From: Wei ZHOU [mailto:ustcweiz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:28 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDS
Message-
> >>>From: Wei ZHOU [mailto:ustcweiz...@gmail.com]
> >>>Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:28 AM
> >>>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >>>Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
> >>>
> >>>
Le 16/05/2013 15:56, Chip Childers a écrit :
If we were able to upgrade you correctly to 4.1, but security groups were not
yet
functional, would that suffice?
yes.
--
Nicolas Lamirault
___
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 03:59:06PM +0200, nicolas.lamira...@orange.com wrote:
> Le 16/05/2013 15:56, Chip Childers a écrit :
> >If we were able to upgrade you correctly to 4.1, but security groups were
> >not yet
> >functional, would that suffice?
>
> yes.
Anthony,
Since VMware support for SG's
-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 03:59:06PM +0200, nicolas.lamira...@orange.com wrote:
> Le 16/05/2013 15:56, Chip Childers a écrit :
> >If we were able to upgrade you correctly to 4.1, but security groups
> >were not yet functional, would that suffice
ip Childers'; dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Wei Zhou
> (w.z...@leaseweb.com)
> Subject: RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>
> I'm afraid it might introduce extra effort to allow them to use SG again if
> they
> manage to upgrade to 4.1.
> I already ch
3 10:18 AM
>> To: 'Chip Childers'; dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Wei Zhou
>> (w.z...@leaseweb.com)
>> Subject: RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>>
>> I'm afraid it might introduce extra effort to allow them to use SG again if
> -Original Message-
> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.z...@leaseweb.com)
> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved
ne-security-group
>>>> from master and did some basic tests.
>>>> Wei Zhou kindly agreed to do more tests in that branch and add some
>>>> integration test cases. I think after this we can merge this branch
>>>> to master and 4.1.
>>>>
>>>
t; Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.z...@leaseweb.com)
> >> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 17, 2013, at
May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.z...@leaseweb.com)
>>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 1
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:43:01PM -0400, John Burwell wrote:
> Chip,
>
> In addition to this issue, we still do not have a resolution for the system
> VM clock drift on Xen (CLOUDSTACK-2492 [1]).
>
> Thanks,
> -John
>
> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2492
Yes, but diffe
My preference leans towards option 2. Dont release until we have a valid
path for the 2.x cast aways to return back to a more modern version. Do we
know the LOE required to bring the advanced security groups back for
KVM/Xen?
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Chip Childers
wrote:
> On Mon, May 2
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
>> >> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
>> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> >> Cc: 'Chip Chi
> -Original Message-
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:36 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:
;> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
> >> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> >> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.z...@leaseweb.com)
> >> >> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1
> >>vs 4.2
> >&
Original Message-
>>>>> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.z...@leaseweb.com)
>>>>>
.
Le 21/05/2013 12:58, Sebastien Goasguen a écrit :
On May 20, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:36 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK
> -Original Message-
> From: nicolas.lamira...@orange.com [mailto:nicolas.lamira...@orange.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>
> Hi
> We d
nicolas.lamira...@orange.com [mailto:nicolas.lamira...@orange.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
> >
> > Hi
> > We didn't so much choose the Security G
ct a reply tomorrow?
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 01:01:59PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
-Original Message-
From: nicolas.lamira...@orange.com [mailto:nicolas.lamira...@orange.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-
com]
> >>>Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM
> >>>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >>>Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
> >>>
> >>>Hi
> >>>We didn't so much choose the Securit
haturvedi wrote:
-Original Message-
From: nicolas.lamira...@orange.com [mailto:nicolas.lamira...@orange.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Hi
We didn'
0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: nicolas.lamira...@orange.com [mailto:nicolas.lamira...@orange.com]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM
>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apa
CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Hi
We didn't so much choose the Security Groups feature as we found that the
VLAN option, which is the only other option available in 2.2.13, wouldn't let
us achieve what we had in mind in terms of Network Architecture.
This was more of a default
urvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:02 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: nicolas.lamira...@orange.com
> > [mai
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
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
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
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
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
39 matches
Mail list logo
