On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:06:26AM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > > On Mar 22, 2013, at 9:57 AM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 09:50:38AM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > >> > >> > >> Thanks > >> Animesh > >> > >> On Mar 22, 2013, at 9:27 AM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 06:03:49PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > >>>> 2. Add Cluster > >>>> - Baremetal show up in list of hypervisors. This is coming from > >>>> listHypervisors command > >>>> > >>>> How to fix: This comes from the file server/src/com/cloud/configuration/ > >>>> Config.java in property " hypervisor.list" and is pulled from Database > >>>> table "Configuration". > >>>> > >>>> How to fix. : removing the BareMetal from hypervisors.list property in > >>>> Config.java will fix it for fresh installs. This will fix the fresh > >>>> install but to fix it for upgrade we need to fix the upgrade sql data > >>>> files. I am not sure if we should fix this I am not clear on upgrade > >>>> concerns? Alex/Chip any comments. > >>> > >>> Help me understand this one. Is there data in a table somewhere for > >>> pre-4.1 released versions? > >> > >> Yes the Configuration database table has an attribute hypervisors.list and > >> the value for that attribute is comma separated list of supported > >> hypervisors, and includes 'BareMetal'. No Schema change is needed. Fix is > >> to remove 'BareMetal' from attribute value. > >> > >> I do not have enough history to make a call how important is to fix it. > >> The fix is trivial. > > > > OK, so it was in that table as part of the previous baremetal > > "experimental" feature? > Yes > > > > In that case, can I also assume that there's no impact to the data being > > in the table? > > If we let 'BareMetal' in the table it will be returned in listHypervisors API > call and UI will show it in Add Cluster screen for upgrade from 4.0 -4.1
So what we are *REALLY* talking about here, is that an experimental feature from past releases was modified for 4.1 but is broken completely now. IMO we need to do 2 things. First, we *must* document that the experimental feature from past releases is not in 4.1 in the release notes. Second, yes, we should remove it from the DB. Basically, nobody is going to be able to use it if they install the code, right? So if they do use bare metal from a prior version, I certainly hope that they don't upgrade to 4.1 (given the state of the feature). Anyone else have a thought?
