And just for my own clarification, the only S3 functionality it jeopardizes for 4.1 is the cross-zone template sync, correct? Not any S3 based primary or secondary storage, right? On May 21, 2013 8:39 PM, "Outback Dingo" <outbackdi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Chiradeep Vittal < > chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > Outback, it would be helpful to understand the harm you are facing > without > > this fix. > > Are you operating a CloudStack cloud already? Have you lost Vms/ lost > data > > / faced unexplained crashes, or found your cloud unavailable due to this? > > Note that this bug has been there since 2.2 > > > > > It would break a current migration path to s3 storage capabilities > currently being rolled out for XEN based hypervisors > as it was mentioned in the thread. This negates our and others capabilities > to be inline with other Hypervisors, and > having to wait until a fix/patch can be applied. It also negates current > infrastructure design for commercial > and private clouds based on XEN/XCP for a more robust storage > infrastructure then is currently capable. > > IMHO, aside from the technical details, your basically telling all XEN > infrastructure, too bad. no new s3 infrastructure for you, from my > perspective this is both bad practice, and again, leaves XEN/XCP users > wanting, and waiting again..... > > > > On 5/21/13 5:59 PM, "Outback Dingo" <outbackdi...@gmail.com> 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 > > >> > > >> > > >-1 do *not* proceed > > > > > > > > >> -chip > > >> > > >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/rw7vciq3r33biasb > > >> > > > > >
