Oh, the premium secondary storage stuff is fixed a few minutes ago... Need to build vmware plugin before creating systemvm.zip.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:16 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: re-implement clvm > > 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 > >> >>>> >
