Re: Ansible 2.7: CloudStack related changes and future

Rene, Your contributions to the community have been nothing short of amazing. We're going to really miss you! Best to all of your future endeavours. - Si From: Tutkowski, Mike Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 12:31 PM To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org; users@clou

Re: Ansible 2.7: CloudStack related changes and future

Thanks, Rene, for all of the work you’ve done! On 10/8/18, 10:02 AM, "Giles Sirett" wrote: Rene Really sorry to hear that. I want to say a massive thank you for all of your work with the ansible/cloudstack modules. I know lots of people have benefitted from the modules, a testame

RE: Ansible 2.7: CloudStack related changes and future

Rene Really sorry to hear that. I want to say a massive thank you for all of your work with the ansible/cloudstack modules. I know lots of people have benefitted from the modules, a testament to some very cool work Thank you and good luck with whatever's next for you Kind regards Giles giles.

Re: Ansible 2.7: CloudStack related changes and future

Hi Rene, Can you introduce me to the Ansible community, I can try to contribute and support around any API integration. - Rohit From: Rene Moser Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 5:17:32 PM To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; d...@

Re: Ansible 2.7: CloudStack related changes and future

Sorry, I forgot to mention, that David Passante is already part of the ansible cloudstack team, but at least one other person would be helpful. Thanks again René

Ansible 2.7: CloudStack related changes and future

Hi all First, please note I am leaving my current job by the end of November and I don't see that CloudStack will play any role in my professional future. As a result, I official announce the end of my maintenance for the Ansible CloudStack modules with the release of Ansible v2.8.0 in spring 201

RE: Virtual Router not accepting SSH connections from CloudStack Management server

VMware (on the end of this mail, you can see the full setup ) -Original Message- From: Rafael Weingärtner Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 1:20 PM To: users Subject: Re: Virtual Router not accepting SSH connections from CloudStack Management server What hypervisor do you use? On Mon, Oc

Re: 4.9 to 4.11 upgrade broken

Hi Yordan, There’s an initiative now to combine all sources of documentation into one place (https://beta-cloudstack-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/). Please have a browse and whenever you think you could edit/correct/add something there’s a link ‘Edit on GitHub’ in the header, where you can mak

Re: Virtual Router not accepting SSH connections from CloudStack Management server

What hypervisor do you use? On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 4:53 AM wrote: > Hello folks, > > > >Like I told in my previous email, my virtual router is > not accepting SSH connection from management server.. or any other server. > What I have found is that my default iptables rule loo

RE: Build template with Packer

Hi René, Thanks, there are a lot of cool stuff there ;) Regards, N.B -Message d'origine- De : Rene Moser [mailto:m...@renemoser.net] Envoyé : lundi 8 octobre 2018 11:19 À : users@cloudstack.apache.org Objet : Re: Build template with Packer Hi Nicolas On 10/08/2018 11:10 AM, Nicolas B

Re: Build template with Packer

Hi Nicolas On 10/08/2018 11:10 AM, Nicolas Bouige wrote: > Did anyone try to set up template for cloudstack with Packer ? > > Especially, to install all prerequisites and update. > > If someone have some json example for cloudstack, so  i could work on it > and set up my own build Also see http

Build template with Packer

Hello All, Did anyone try to set up template for cloudstack with Packer ? Especially, to install all prerequisites and update. If someone have some json example for cloudstack, so i could work on it and set up my own build Any help would be appreciate. Thanks, N.B [SignatureBouige]

Virtual Router not accepting SSH connections from CloudStack Management server

Hello folks, Like I told in my previous email, my virtual router is not accepting SSH connection from management server.. or any other server. What I have found is that my default iptables rule looks incorrect for me, accepting connection on 3922 only for eth1. : 51 2