with 4.5 you should be fine On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Matthew Midgett <clouds...@trick-solutions.com.invalid> wrote: > And where exactly do we stand with this right now? Can I install with ACS 4.5? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:17 AM > To: dev > Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5 > > Adrian, I think your questions/considerations are right and I have been > wondering about the same things. > On one side it should be "allowed unless" instead of "only allowed if". On > the other hand therre are sure to be some features extra or some that might > have a slightly different semantics that might hinder or impair cloudstack. > Not sure what the right answer is. Hope that someone with a view on the > architectural decisions behind it can shed some light. > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Adrian Lewis <adr...@alsiconsulting.co.uk> > wrote: >> With XS 6.5 released, is anyone able to comment on: >> >> 1. Does the 4.5 branch need updating to support it? >> 2. If the changes are so minor, will we see support in 4.3.x or 4.4.x >> as well? >> >> Do we consider this to be a feature or bug? If the code for the >> resource class stays exactly the same and the only thing blocking the >> use of XS 6.5 is the checks that CS does when adding a new host, would >> this not be considered as a bug? Technically the validation is broken >> as its intent is to determine whether or not the current resource >> class can handle the hypervisor. If the current resource class can in >> fact handle XS6.5 but the validation code says it can't, isn’t this is a bug? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Adrian >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tim Mackey [mailto:tmac...@gmail.com] >> Sent: 20 October 2014 20:10 >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5 >> >> Correct on both counts >> >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Daan Hoogland >> <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> thanks Tim, from this I take that hypervisor versions are hardcoded >>> still, and xenserver 6.5 is supported since 4.5. correct? >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Tim Mackey <tmac...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Daan, >>> > >>> > Here are the relevant commits: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2 >>> b >>> e02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723 >>> > >>> > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b >>> 7 >>> f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72 >>> > >>> > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=6 >>> 7 >>> 4af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59 >>> > >>> > Mike, >>> > >>> > Here's an example of the type of DB changes: >>> > >>> > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f >>> = >>> setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4 >>> c >>> ddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089 >>> b >>> 6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=f212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268 >>> > >>> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Tutkowski < >>> > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a >>> > > DB >>> > update. >>> > > >>> > > Can you clarify that? >>> > > >>> > > Thanks! >>> > > >>> > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland < >>> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com >>> > > >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db >>> > changes... >>> > > Do >>> > > > you have a commit id? >>> > > > >>> > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey <tmac...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things >>> > > > > work >>> > > better >>> > > > > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant >>> > > > > issues, >>> being >>> > > able >>> > > > > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a >>> > > > > database >>> > update. >>> > > > So >>> > > > > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the >>> various >>> > > > > pre-release builds since beta.2). >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski < >>> > > > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous >>> > > > > > XenServer >>> > resource >>> > > > > class >>> > > > > > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't >>> > > > > > think you >>> > > need >>> > > > to >>> > > > > > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of >>> XenServer, >>> > > then >>> > > > > > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle >>> > > > > > the discrepancies. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis < >>> > > adr...@alsiconsulting.co.uk >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no >>> > > > > > > issues >>> with >>> > > > using >>> > > > > > 6.5 >>> > > > > > > when it's released and there are no >>> > > > > > > backwards-compatibility >>> > > problems, >>> > > > > > will >>> > > > > > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be >>> > > > > > > *explicitly* told >>> > > that >>> > > > > > newer, >>> > > > > > > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid >>> > > hypervisor? >>> > > > > > > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of >>> > > > > > > XS 6.5 >>> > > when >>> > > > it >>> > > > > > > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to >>> > > > > > > start >>> using >>> > > it? >>> > > > If >>> > > > > > so, >>> > > > > > > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would >>> > > > > > > it >>> > > require >>> > > > > > > rebuilding? >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > -----Original Message----- >>> > > > > > > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:stephen.tur...@citrix.com >>> > > > <javascript:;>] >>> > > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28 >>> > > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;> >>> > > > > > > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5 >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are >>> > > > > > > large >>> > > > internal >>> > > > > > > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new >>> > > > > > > storage >>> > > > datapath, >>> > > > > > > PVHVM >>> > > > > > > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially >>> unchanged. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > -- >>> > > > > > > Stephen Turner >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > -----Original Message----- >>> > > > > > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com >>> > > <javascript:;>] >>> > > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32 >>> > > > > > > To: dev >>> > > > > > > Subject: xenserver 6.5 >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 >>> > > > > > > or has >>> an >>> > > > idea >>> > > > > of >>> > > > > > > how much effort that is going to be? >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > -- >>> > > > > > > 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>*™* >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > -- >>> > > > 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>*™* >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daan >>> > > > > -- > Daan >
-- Daan
