this waas fixed Tomasz, Not sure if it made the last release candidate but I suppose it did.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Tomasz Zięba <t.a.zi...@gmail.com> wrote: > small issue: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8175 > > but in general it works fine > > 2015-01-28 14:16 GMT+01:00 Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>: > >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Regards, > Tomasz Zięba > Twitter: @TZieba > LinkedIn: pl.linkedin.com/pub/tomasz-zięba-ph-d/3b/7a8/ab6/ > <http://pl.linkedin.com/pub/tomasz-zi%C4%99ba-ph-d/3b/7a8/ab6/> -- Daan
