I'm at home, don't have access to the copy I cloned yesterday, but wouldn't this have been in there being that the date is May 24? Or was it committed in a branch that was merged (sorry, not super versed in git). At any rate, I'll give it a shot tomorrow, just wanted to look at the change.
This doesn't fix the premium secondary storage issue, correct? Thanks for the help! On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: > 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 >> >>>> >
