i tried running nightly engine (well, since 3.2 beta repo still contains
an old version).
from beta repo i got this vdsm version:
vdsm-4.10.3-4.fc18.x86_64
it doesn't contain latest getHardwareInfo which engine expects[1]
i enabled the nightly repo, expecting a newer vdsm, but nightly has vdsm
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:20:12PM -0500, Itamar Heim wrote:
> i tried running nightly engine (well, since 3.2 beta repo still
> contains an old version).
> from beta repo i got this vdsm version:
> vdsm-4.10.3-4.fc18.x86_64
>
> it doesn't contain latest getHardwareInfo which engine expects[1]
> i
On 01/17/2013 04:15 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:20:12PM -0500, Itamar Heim wrote:
i tried running nightly engine (well, since 3.2 beta repo still
contains an old version).
from beta repo i got this vdsm version:
vdsm-4.10.3-4.fc18.x86_64
it doesn't contain latest getHar
Yes, vdsm in master needs to be updated to something > 4.10.There are also issues with node registration on 3.2 due to some supervdsm bug. (Sorry for top posting, at the airport on my cell phone.) Original Message From: Itamar Heim Sent: Thu, 17/01/2013 04:21 PM To: Dan Kenigsber
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:18:02PM -0500, Itamar Heim wrote:
> On 01/17/2013 04:15 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:20:12PM -0500, Itamar Heim wrote:
> >>i tried running nightly engine (well, since 3.2 beta repo still
> >>contains an old version).
> >>from beta repo i got thi
Hi,
On 01/19/2013 02:08 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:18:02PM -0500, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 01/17/2013 04:15 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:20:12PM -0500, Itamar Heim wrote:
i tried running nightly engine (well, since 3.2 beta repo still
contains an
- Original Message -
> From: "Douglas Landgraf"
> To: "Dan Kenigsberg"
> Cc: "Ofer Schreiber" , vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:49:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [vdsm] which vdsm version for 3.2?
>
> Hi
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 08:49 -0500, Douglas Landgraf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 01/19/2013 02:08 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:18:02PM -0500, Itamar Heim wrote:
> >> On 01/17/2013 04:15 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:20:12PM -0500, Itamar Heim wrote: