Hi Dann, Thank you for organizing issue. > Is this a blocker? Yes, it is. At least Mike's latest commit in master should be picked into 4.4 to utilize SolidFire's storage. If possible, I would like to make additional change I proposed. I regard this part is better to have, but not a blocker for 4.4.
> Do you have that patch ready to ship? Yes, I have a patch and I pushed with a branch name "remove-root-disk-filtering-logic-for-iscsi-storage". https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/remove-root-disk-filtering-logic-for-iscsi-storage I suppose it works for Mike since the root disk filtering logic he concerned is removed. I confirmed it can be compiled, but I haven't confirmed in a test environment with iSCSI storage. Mike, Could you confirm this fix will resolve your concern? 2014-06-27 1:56 GMT-06:00 Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>: > Noji, Mike, > > Is this a blocker? I realize that we are in three different timezones > and always one of us must be sleeping but I really would like to > handle this today in spite of other tasks. > > @Mike: I suppose you would consider it a blocker. if you read Noji's > latest proposal before breakfast, can you say something about the > feasibility of the solution? > > @ Noji, Do you have that patch ready to ship? and do you have an > alternative, in case it doesn't work for Mike? > As I recall the original issue that you solved with it was quite > serious to you, was it? Could we release with a revert? > > 20:00 UTC I come back home from unrelated business and could have an > irc meeting. > regard and many thanks, > Daan > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> ok, Mike I will have a look how it came in and revert >> >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Mike Tutkowski >> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >>> Yeah, I just looked at the Review Request: >>> >>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/22717/#review46838 >>> >>> It says it's for master (4.5), so I'm not sure how this ended up in 4.4 or >>> 4.4-forward. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Mike Tutkowski < >>> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Daan, >>>> >>>> Please revert commit 99dd86e588fd28dedd5fb3b830297a8a4f885760 from 4.4. >>>> >>>> Also, please revert commit 45f0c7367680f4bfbcee470139b708d69322be78 from >>>> 4.4-forward. >>>> >>>> These commits actually break zone-wide primary storage. >>>> >>>> I was not aware that they ended up in 4.4 and 4.4-forward (I was thinking >>>> they were just in master). >>>> >>>> I performed some testing on this logic in master tonight and saw the >>>> breakage of zone-wide primary storage. >>>> >>>> In my opinion, we don't have enough in the way of regression testing in >>>> CloudStack to be comfortable committing code that can have such >>>> wide-ranging effects this late in the game. >>>> >>>> I think we should start asking for a risk analysis from the developer when >>>> code is checked in this late in the game (the more risk, the more important >>>> the issue better be and the more testing that better have been done). In >>>> this case, my entire plug-in would have been rendered useless in 4.4 by >>>> these checkins and I don't understand how the issue itself even qualified >>>> as a Blocker or Critical. >>>> >>>> Thanks, Daan! >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Mike Tutkowski* >>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* >>>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >>>> o: 303.746.7302 >>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud >>>> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Mike Tutkowski* >>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* >>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >>> o: 303.746.7302 >>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud >>> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* >> >> >> >> -- >> Daan > > > > -- > Daan
