Marcus,
I am trying to understand the upgrade issue that you are facing.
It seems there were changes during various rounds of RC that we had for
4.2.0 .
The fix that you have mentioned in the email actually got introduced in
the 4.2 GA.
So someone upgrading to 4.2 GA will not have that constraint on the
vpc_service_map table.
Just for clarity this does not affect the upgrade from 4.2 GA to 4.2.1.
If you have any doubts please specify those with clarity so these it can
get rectified at the earliest.
David,
I think it is still not a ³-1².
-abhi
On 15/11/13 10:40 am, "Marcus Sorensen" <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yes, I'd say that upgrade from 4.2.0 to 4.2.1 needs to work.
>On Nov 14, 2013 5:58 PM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>
>> Marcus:
>>
>> Is this is a -1?
>>
>> I don't have any legal concerns, and the release builds and tests for
>> me (though I haven't tried VPC). I am somewhat concerned about what
>> appears to be drifting away from adhering to semver. (features appear
>> to have made it into the 4.2.1 release that weren't in 4.2.0) and I am
>> also concerned about sys vm update fatigue, especially given the
>> problems we had in 4.2.0 around sysvm updates.
>>
>> --David
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Yeah, I understand that 4.2.0 had a lot of post-release work needed.
>> >
>> > We are unable to create VPNs. This is reported second hand from one
>> > of my admins. He seems to think that it was caused by the following,
>> > which added a for loop inside a for loop. The error is:
>> >
>>
>>'com.mysql.jdbc.exceptions.jdbc4.MySQLIntegrityConstraintViolationExcepti
>>on:
>> > Duplicate entry '146-Lb' for key 'vpc_id'
>> >
>> > We did the following to fix it, something should be added to the sql
>> upgrade.
>> > mysql -D cloud -t -e 'alter table vpc_service_map drop key vpc_id, add
>> > unique key vpc_id (vpc_id,service,provider)'
>> >
>> >
>> > commit 9050cfad3da673370d6ad1ed7570e31314069996
>> >
>> > CLOUDSTACK-4704: 41-42 db upgrade - populate vpc_service_map table
>> > with the services/providers supported by VPC
>> >
>> >
>> > @Override
>> > @DB
>> > - public void persistVpcServiceProviders(long vpcId, Map<String,
>> > String> serviceProviderMap) {
>> > + public void persistVpcServiceProviders(long vpcId, Map<String,
>> > List<String>> serviceProviderMap) {
>> > Transaction txn = Transaction.currentTxn();
>> > txn.start();
>> > for (String service : serviceProviderMap.keySet()) {
>> > - VpcServiceMapVO serviceMap = new VpcServiceMapVO(vpcId,
>> > Network.Service.getService(service),
>> > Network.Provider.getProvider(serviceProviderMap.get(service)));
>> > - _vpcSvcMap.persist(serviceMap);
>> > + for (String provider : serviceProviderMap.get(service)) {
>> > + VpcServiceMapVO serviceMap = new
>> > VpcServiceMapVO(vpcId, Network.Service.getService(service),
>> > Network.Provider.getProvider(provider));
>> > + _vpcSvcMap.persist(serviceMap);
>> > + }
>> > }
>> > txn.commit();
>> > }
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Daan Hoogland
>><daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> +1 binding (I had not been clear on this in this thread it seems)
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>> >> <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >>> Marcus,
>> >>>
>> >>> Just summarising your concerns so that they can be followed upon:
>> >>> 1. Due to a VR script change a restart of VR is required. This
>>should
>> be
>> >>> noted down in upgrade instructions in RN. (Radhika to note)
>> >>> 2. For a maintenance release we should limit the scope to only
>> blockers. I
>> >>> guess what is done is done probably for better as the main release
>>had
>> so
>> >>> many new features that a whole lot fixes were expected in the
>> maintenance
>> >>> release. But again for further maintenance releases scope should be
>> >>> restricted to important fixes.
>> >>>
>> >>> Any other thing that has been missed ?
>> >>>
>> >>> -abhi
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 14/11/13 12:06 am, "Marcus Sorensen" <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>I'm unable to deploy virtual machines after upgrading an existing
>> >>>>4.2.0 to this release.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>It looks like the file savepassword.sh was added at the end of
>>October
>> >>>>as a virtual router script. This would likely mean that people
>> >>>>upgrading to 4.2.1 will need to upgrade/redeploy their routers. I
>>can
>> >>>>verify that deploy works if I reboot the router.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Looking over the current state of 4.2, I'm actually pretty surprised
>> >>>>at how much has changed. I'm seeing lots of whitespace fixes,
>>changes
>> >>>>to interfaces, etc. My impression was that we'd only commit fixes
>>for
>> >>>>blocker bugs once a release has gone production, only touching it if
>> >>>>we had to. This went pretty well with 4.1, I thought, but everything
>> >>>>was going through the RM that round.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>2013-11-13 11:25:24,917 DEBUG
>> >>>>[resource.virtualnetwork.VirtualRoutingResource]
>> >>>>(agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Executing:
>> >>>>/usr/share/cloudstack-common/scripts/network/domr/router_proxy.sh
>> >>>>savepassword.sh 169.254.1.163 -v 10.2.4.116 -p fnirq_cnffjbeq
>> >>>>
>> >>>>2013-11-13 11:25:25,000 DEBUG
>> >>>>[resource.virtualnetwork.VirtualRoutingResource]
>> >>>>(agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Exit value is 127
>> >>>>
>> >>>>2013-11-13 11:25:25,001 DEBUG
>> >>>>[resource.virtualnetwork.VirtualRoutingResource]
>> >>>>(agentRequest-Handler-2:null) bash: /opt/cloud/bin/savepassword.sh:
>>No
>> >>>>such file or directory
>> >>>>
>> >>>>2013-11-13 11:25:25,002 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent]
>> >>>>(agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Seq 21-289734823: { Ans: , MgmtId:
>> >>>>90520732090445, via: 21, Ver: v1, Flags: 110,
>> >>>>[{"com.cloud.agent.api.Answer":{"result":false,"details":"Unable to
>> >>>>save password to
>>
>>
>>>>>>DomR.","wait":0}},{"com.cloud.agent.api.Answer":{"result":false,"deta
>>>>>>ils":
>> >>>>"Stopped
>> >>>>by previous failure","wait":0}}] }
>> >>>>
>> >>>>On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Chip Childers <
>> chipchild...@apache.org>
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>> >>>>> <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> This vote is to approve the current RC build for 4.2.1
>> maintenance
>> >>>>>>release.
>> >>>>>> For this particular release various upgrade paths have been
>>tested
>> >>>>>>apart from regression tests and BVTs.
>> >>>>>> Around 175 bugs have been fixed some new features added (see
>> CHANGES).
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Following are the particulars for this release:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=re
>> >>>>>>fs/heads/4.2
>> >>>>>> commit: 0b9eadaf14513f5c72de672963b0e2f12ee7206f
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> List of changes:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=
>> >>>>>>CHANGES;hb=4.2.1
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Source release revision 3492 (checksums and signatures are
>>available
>> >>>>>>at the same location):
>> >>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>> >>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 11/15 End of day PST).
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
>>to
>> >>>>>>indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>> >>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> >>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> +1 (binding)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I only performed very rudimentary functional testing, but the
>> >>>>> artifact's look legit.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks for doing this Abhi!
>> >>>
>>
