It's been fixed commit: 0ec679c359bfaf8ec43a80fcbc5c617f6c74cab9 Can you get the latest code and rebuild the system iso, copy iso to hypervisor host, then stop/start ssvm.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 3:57 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: re-implement clvm > > 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- > d...@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 > >>>> >
