I have a request that if we provide a system vm going forward that it have virtio_console support from early on, as well as qemu-ga (qemu-guest-agent) service started before cloud-early-config, so we can use it to control the system vms on KVM.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti <sudha.ponnaga...@citrix.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Just want to summarize what QA is doing for 4.1 validation and 4.2 so we are > all on the same page. > > 4.1 > * we will use 4.0 template for IPV4 testing ( all QA uses this one) - (Even > for this VMWare template is broken [1] and that is a different topic) > *Sangeetha who is testing IPV6 or any others who are interested can use > template provided by Sheng. > > 4.2 ( Master) > * Continue to use older templates (4.0) temporarily till Rohit makes the > template process streamlined for all HVs > * Reason is being that blockers are being logged against new procedure done > by Rohit [2]. It need to be tested and all templates ( xen/vmware/kvm) need > to completed. > * once he gives a go ahead all QA will consume that. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1252 > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1462 > > Hope this approach is fine for everyone. > > Thanks > /Sudha > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:13 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release? > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:47:25AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal >> <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: >> > >> >>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted >> >>alone, I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole >> >>4.1 release, to avoid confusion. >> > >> > As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion. >> > People are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since >> > it is considered experimental. >> > I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this >> > stage of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go >> > with the 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks >> > ago, I'd say, 'yeah, probably OK'. >> >> I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would >> need a template. I stated so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I >> opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1. Thanks to Rohit, we >> started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine. >> >> But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the >> issue raised by QA at last minute. >> >> I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in >> 4.1. Seems nobody cares. >> > >> >> >> >>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm >> >>template for one release would be tricky I think. >> > >> > Yes, but it is experimental. >> > >> >> >> >>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained >> >>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside >> >>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, >> >>tested enough for default template. >> > >> > These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we >> > could use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the >> > apt-get unless some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For >> > example: >> > - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or >> > - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created. >> >> I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or >> confident. >> >> I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things. >> >> According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's >> right that people not quite interested in ipv6. > > To be clear, I personally am *very* interested in getting IPv6 support. > I think what we are talking about is the fact that this is experimental for > 4.1 (as previously agreed). > >> >> Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable >> with updated template. > > +1 to that approach. > > And another +1 to the implied implementation of IPv6, plus a new template, > plus a new template build process, plus the UI, plus lots of testing... to > make IPv6 support a full feature for 4.2. > >> >> --Sheng >> >> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785 >> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387 >> [3] >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus >> =15159 >> > >> >> >> >>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade >> >>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't >> >>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it >> >>again, Kelven should able to help with it. >> >> >> >>--Sheng >> >> >> >>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers >> >><chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: >> >>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless >> >>>>the ipv6 feature is required in which case: >> >>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been >> >>>>testing with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta) >> >>>>B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is >> >>>>created) to >> >>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages> >> >>> >> >>> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would >> >>> be considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if >> >>> someone wants to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do >> >>> a little more work to get the correct system VM. >> >>> >> >>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one. >> >>> >> >>> Other thoughts? >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bhais...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: >> >>>> >> When I first report the bug >> >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066 >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't >> >>>> >>aware of that. >> >>>> > >> >>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the >> >>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since >> >>>> >I started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the >> >>>> >version to >> >>>> >4.2 >> >>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make >> >>>> >it in 4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and >> >>>> >we've an automated jenkins job. The only problems are: >> >>>> > >> >>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1 >> >>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the >> >>>> >appliance/template really works [2] >> >>>> > >> >>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I >> >>>> >would try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least >> >>>> >before 28/2, I really want to see your feature go in 4.1 Since, >> >>>> >4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at >> >>>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be >> >>>> >used in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) >> >>>> >and we could still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few >> >>>> >more weeks before the release; otherwise we can always use the same >> >>>> >old template. >> >>>> > >> >>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc? >> >>>> > >> >>>> >Regards. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066 >> >>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340 >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> --Sheng >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers >> >>>> >> <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >> >>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan >> >>>> >>> Purushothama >> >>>>wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature >> >>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The >> >>>> >>>>system >> >>>>VM >> >>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-m >> >>>>>>>>aster/ >> >>>>>>>>las >> >>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am >> >>>> >>>>referring to the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question. >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use >> >>>> >>> now >> >>>>are the >> >>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix >> >>>>pre-ASF). >> >>>> >> >>>> >> > >>
