hacked a fix by editing /var/cache/cloud/cmdline in the ssvm to use NfsSecondaryStorageResource. Now I hit "http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-15143";, x != java.lang.String, not sure if this is a regression or due to my hack.
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Edison, > I'm having trouble testing my patch against incubator-cloudstack. > Every indication seems to be that it's working, but the secondary > storage VM seems to be messed up. I found this: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg02431.html > > Which you commented on, I just want to ensure that the issues aren't > due to my patch. Basically the ssvm doesn't launch its agent. I would > like to launch an instance and test my patch further, but am unable > to. > > 22:23:34,035 ERROR AgentShell:606 - Unable to start agent: Resource > class not found: > com.cloud.storage.resource.PremiumSecondaryStorageResource due to: > java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: > com.cloud.storage.resource.PremiumSecondaryStorageResource > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Ok, I'll send on the core java patch portion. I've reviewed the >> managesnapshot.sh changes. I had someone begin to create a clean room >> version implementing the same functionality, and in the process found >> that we can really only change it superficially as well. The clean >> room version changed the bulk of the code into a single 'lvcreate >> --snapshot' command, however we found that there's an issue with >> --snapshot and CLVM exclusive locking, which led the developer to >> implement 'lvcreate --snapshot' using equivalent dmsetup commands. At >> that point we had something that looked the same as the original >> patch, with only minor changes in syntax and variable names. >> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 3:09 PM >>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>> Subject: RE: re-implement clvm >>>> >>>> Oh, I understand, but most of the relevant code is implemented in >>>> 'if/else >>>> if/else' blocks, such that its simply a matter of copying the existing >>>> RBD >>>> code into another 'else if' block and changing a few words (which in >>>> turn >>>> the RBD stuff did previously with the pulled, pre apache CLVM code, or >>>> so >>>> it looks). In my opinion there's really no other way to do it without >>>> restructuring to avoid the cascading ifs. >>> >>> >>> That's true, in current code, that's the only way. >>> >>>> >>>> It sounds like aside from the snapshot code the removal was probably >>>> unnecessary, having been reworked by a third party from Rommer's >>>> submissions prior to being merged. I know little about the application >>>> of >>>> licensing details though. >>> >>> Please send the core java code to reviewboard, we can apply it. This part >>> of java code is general enough, meaning everybody wants to implement CLVM >>> needs to write the same code. >>> >>>> >>>> What I do know however is that its extremely painful to rip something >>>> major >>>> like this out on existing users, rendering their whole infrastructure >>>> obsolete with no upgrade path. Especially given the relative trivial >>>> nature >>>> of the patch, you'd think that one of the project owners would take an >>>> hour >>>> or two and rework it. Of course it makes sense that the people who use >>>> and >>>> care about a component should help develop it in an open source world, >>>> but >>>> the cloud stack consumers don't always follow development. Maybe we are >>>> the >>>> only ones who use it, but I think if the next major release pulls CLVM >>>> support there will be an uproar. What if it had been the code >>>> implementing >>>> NFS support? >>> >>> I removed it in May 15, due to the concern that it conflicts with Apache >>> license. While at that time, I didn't send an email to dev/user list about >>> this decision. That's my mistake. I'll make sure this kind of thing will >>> not happen again. >>> >>>> >>>> Sorry for the rant. Hopefully we can get it resolved. >>> >>> Sure, we can get it resolved. >>> >>>> On Aug 2, 2012 2:21 PM, "Kevin Kluge" <kevin.kl...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Marcus, you should write the new code in compliance with the Apache >>>> CLA, >>>> > which will forbid directly copying code from some other source. >>>> Having >>>> > said that, if the problem is constrained enough by existing >>>> CloudStack code >>>> > and/or the solution is so obvious that your code looks like the >>>> original >>>> > code, that's just what it is. >>>> > >>>> > I'm not a lawyer so please don't take this as legal advice from >>>> Citrix or >>>> > me. >>>> > >>>> > -kevin >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > -----Original Message----- >>>> > > From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >>>> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 3:09 PM >>>> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>> > > Subject: Re: re-implement clvm >>>> > > >>>> > > Here's the refactored patch. The CLVM stuff is basically a copy of >>>> the >>>> > RBD >>>> > > additions; and the patch also includes the original changes to >>>> > > managesnapshot.sh, which is unmodified. >>>> > > >>>> > > I'm personally more concerned about the core functionality at this >>>> > point, I >>>> > > can go through and re-implement the snapshot stuff, but if the core >>>> stuff >>>> > > can't be pulled in due to licensing then it's not worth the trouble >>>> to >>>> > redo the >>>> > > snapshotting. If there's anyone in a position of authority to >>>> address the >>>> > > licensing stuff any input would be appreciated. >>>> > > >>>> > > Thanks, >>>> > > Marcus >>>> > > >>>> > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > > > The most complicated part in rommer's patch is LVM snapshot. If >>>> > snapshot >>>> > > support is not a must, then adding CLVM is simple as RBD. >>>> > > > >>>> > > >> -----Original Message----- >>>> > > >> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >>>> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:33 PM >>>> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>> > > >> Subject: Re: re-implement clvm >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> Ok, so I've created a refactored patch that seems to work. It >>>> was >>>> > > >> pretty much entirely the RBD additions that were blocking the >>>> > > >> original from being rolled back in. If a developer would be >>>> willing >>>> > > >> to take on the whole license issue and see this functionality >>>> put >>>> > > >> back in I'd still be willing to pay half of the bounty ($400). >>>> As >>>> > > >> the code looks, the changes are fairly minor, and I'm not sure >>>> how >>>> > > >> novel you'd have to get avoid the license issues (or that >>>> there's any >>>> > > >> easy alternative way to change the code sufficiently) >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> >>>> wrote: >>>> > > >> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Wido den Hollander >>>> > > >> > <w...@widodh.nl> >>>> > > >> wrote: >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> On 07/31/2012 09:48 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote: >>>> > > >> >>> >>>> > > >> >>> I'd be happy to try more if I had access to any contact info. >>>> As >>>> > > >> it >>>> > > >> >>> is, things in the surrounding code have changed enough that >>>> a bit >>>> > > >> of >>>> > > >> >>> re-factoring would need to be done even if there were >>>> permission. >>>> > > >> >>> >>>> > > >> >>> My hunch is that unless he's switched roles, once the new >>>> version >>>> > > >> is >>>> > > >> >>> released he may come out of the woodwork wondering why that >>>> > > thing >>>> > > >> he >>>> > > >> >>> has a need for and developed is gone. >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> After writing the last RBD implementation this CLVM seems >>>> trivial. >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> A lot of code is still in there and looking at the commit >>>> where it >>>> > > >> got >>>> > > >> >> removed it wont be that much work. >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> The problem (and I'm not a licensing expert) is that if I >>>> would >>>> > > >> implement >>>> > > >> >> CLVM again it would look a lot like the original code, do we >>>> have >>>> > > >> >> to >>>> > > >> refer >>>> > > >> >> to the old author for that? >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> I'm assuming here that we won't be able to contact the >>>> original >>>> > > >> author, but >>>> > > >> >> we want to keep the CLVM functionality for 4.0. >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> Wido >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > Actually - you should compare the original patches, with what >>>> was >>>> > > >> reverted. : >>>> > > >> > http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-10317 >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > There was already something of a rewrite when Edison changed >>>> how >>>> > > >> > some of the storage was handled (which is the iteration that >>>> was >>>> > > pulled). >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > IANAL either, so I won't bother to even try and answer that >>>> > question. >>>> > > >> > >>>> > > >> > --David >>>> >
