-----Original Message----- From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 4:19 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.1
As long as we document the router reboot requirement in the release notes, yes, I'm +1. Animesh> Yes that should be in release notes On a side note, we have an upgradeRouterScripts API call (in our plugin) that just scps the new systemvm tar up to a given router and extracts it, which allows us to avoid reboots, but we've been leary of pushing it as a feature because we only use it on things that we know don't need service restarts (this new savepassword.sh is a good example). In other words it's not really end-user friendly. We should put something like this on the list for improvements next time around, if we can come up with a way to reinitialize the cloud-early init service Animesh> Do you want to start a separate thread on it. Master is now open for 4.4 enhancements and features On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:42 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.1 > > Ok, that may be my fault as I've got various 4.2.0 systems built from testing > various RCs. I just chose one and tried to upgrade it. Thanks for clearing > that up. > > Animesh> So Marcus this is not a -1 then right? > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Abhinandan Prateek > <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote: >> 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.MySQLIntegrityConstraintViolationEx >>>>c >>>>epti >>>>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. >>>> >>>>s h 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":"Unabl >>>> >>>>e >>>> >>>>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_pla >>>> i >>>> n;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! >>>> >>> >>>> >>
