David, I am willing to do the work. However, as I understand the circumstances, a complete build process for the system VMs has not been released. If I am incorrect in my understanding, I will do the work necessary to fix the problem.
Thanks, -John On May 21, 2013, at 5:29 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Chip Childers > <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >> All, >> >> As discussed on another thread [1], we identified a bug >> (CLOUDSTACK-2492) in the current 3.x system VMs, where the System VMs >> are not configured to sync their time with either the host HV or an NTP >> service. That bug affects the system VMs for all three primary HVs (KVM, >> Xen and vSphere). Patches have been committed addressing vSphere and >> KVM. It appears that a correction for Xen would require the re-build of >> a system VM image and a full round of regression testing that image. >> >> Given that the discussion thread has not resulted in a consensus on this >> issue, I unfortunately believe that the only path forward is to call for >> a formal VOTE. >> >> Please respond with one of the following: >> >> +1: proceed with 4.1 without the Xen portion of CLOUDSTACK-2492 being >> resolved >> +0: don't care one way or the other >> -1: do *not* proceed with any further 4.1 release candidates until >> CLOUDSTACK-2492 has been fully resolved >> >> -chip >> >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/rw7vciq3r33biasb > > > So it appalls me that this problem exists. If I understand correctly, > from folks who commercially support derivatives of ACS. Lack of time > synchronization has been a factor in major outages, but that's > typically been between the hypervisors and management servers. > Regardless we realize (or should) that time is important for so many > reasons (encryption, logs, and scores of other reasons) > > But when the rubber meets the road - here are the two points that > decide it for me. > > 1. This is not a new problem. It's bad, it shouldn't exist, but it > does, and it has for some time it would seem. That suggests it's not > catastrophic, and hasn't yet blocked folks from getting things done > with CloudStack. > > 2. I see no one stepping up to do the work. I am not personally a fan > of issuing what is the effective equivalent of an 'unfunded mandate'. > The problem isn't just one of building a new SSVM - it's one of > testing it, and repeating all of the validation that has already been > done with the existing sysvm. > > Perhaps there is a middle ground (we have a default sysvm, but perhaps > like we are doing with the IPv6-enabled sysvm we have a time-enabled > sysvm available for folks. > > Regardless - you called a vote, so I'll reluctantly cast a +1 - I hate > that we are seeing this problem, but with no one stepping up to do all > of the work, I'm not quite ready to hold a release hostage waiting to > find such a person. > > --David
