Thanks all for your participation towards 4.11.0.0 RC1.
We've managed to discover and fix about 10 blocker fixes, I'll close RC1 voting now and cut RC2 shortly. - Rohit <https://cloudstack.apache.org> ________________________________ From: Frank Maximus <frank.maxi...@nuagenetworks.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:08:40 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: users Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS) I found and fixed an issue in cloudstack-agent logrotate. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-10255 https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2429 IMHO it's feasible to include it in RC2. As only the maven build is impacted by the change, I see little risk. Regards, Frank On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 1:31 PM Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > All, > > > We don't have any outstanding blocker PRs now. > > > I could n't reproduce any regression wrt only VM-HA in RC1. By killing a > HV host (and keep it that way, i.e. not rebooting it), HA enabled VMs did > migrate to other hosts in a test I did. > > > The only potential (blocker) issue seems to be a ldap related regression > reported on users@ that Daan is looking into, which may or may not be a > blocker but a configuration issue. > > > Given, we're approaching the end of the week, it's likely we cut RC2 on > Monday. Please continue testing RC1 in the meanwhile. > > > Regards, > > Rohit Yadav > > > ________________________________ > From: Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro> > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 9:29:21 AM > To: users > Cc: dev > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS) > > Paul, > > Ok, let me play some more with those tunings params, see if I can find a > satisfactory combination and I'll withhold a -1 on this on the basis that > I've just misunderstood the whole thing. :) > > Thanks > > -- > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > Nux! > www.nux.ro > > > rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > > > > rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com www.shapeblue.com 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Paul Angus" <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> > > To: "users" <us...@cloudstack.apache.org> > > Cc: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 January, 2018 19:55:01 > > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS) > > > Hey Nux, > > > > There is quite a bit of tuning you can do, to speed or slow CloudStack's > > decision making, but we need to be sure that when we lose contact with a > host > > agent, that the VMs themselves really are dead. By default host-ha is > set to > > be super sure. > > > > There are various timeouts which can be configured to decide how long to > wait > > for a host to restart before deciding that it is not going to start as > well as > > how many times we should check for disk activity from the resident VMs > of a > > suspect host. > > > > The parameters are detailed here. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Host+HA > > > > Honestly, the aim of Host HA was to fix the particular issue that you are > > describing as we can't remember a time when it did work reliably. > > > > > > > > paul.an...@shapeblue.com > > www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > > @shapeblue > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro] > > Sent: 23 January 2018 19:08 > > To: users <us...@cloudstack.apache.org> > > Cc: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS) > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > To be honest I do not remember when I last saw this, as I have not been > testing > > ACS in 2017. > > You'd kill a HV, the VMs would pop up on another after a few minutes. > > > > Even with Host HA, the VMs remain down until the hypervisor is back up, > > restarted by OOBM - however if that HV has suffered a HW fault and needs > to be > > removed, then those VM will be down for a long time ... > > > > Unless I got things quite wrong, (VM) HA - one of the big selling points > of ACS > > - is essentially broken? > > > > -- > > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > > > Nux! > > www.nux.ro > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Paul Angus" <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> > >> To: "users" <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>, "dev" > >> <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >> Sent: Tuesday, 23 January, 2018 16:02:54 > >> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS) > > > >> Hi Nux, > >> > >> When have you seen the VMs on KVM behaving in the manner which you are > >> expecting? I recall it didn’t work that way in the mid 4.5 versions > >> (we found out the hard way in front of a customer) and it doesn't > >> behave the way you are expecting 4.9 - I've just tested it. > >> > >> You need host-ha enabled to get reliable HA in the event of a host > >> crash, that is why we developed the host ha feature. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> Paul Angus > >> > >> paul.an...@shapeblue.com > >> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > >> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro] > >> Sent: 23 January 2018 15:06 > >> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >> Cc: users <us...@cloudstack.apache.org> > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS) > >> > >> Rohit, > >> > >> I'll also have to insist with the VM HA issue. > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-10246 > >> > >> Lucian > >> > >> -- > >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > >> > >> Nux! > >> www.nux.ro > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Rohit Yadav" <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> > >>> To: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, "users" > >>> <us...@cloudstack.apache.org> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 January, 2018 14:28:34 > >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS) > >> > >>> All, > >>> > >>> > >>> Given we've outstanding blockers and PRs in review/testing, I'll cut > >>> RC2 only after we manage to get them reviewed, tested and merged. > >>> > >>> > >>> The outstanding PRs considered for RC2 are: > >>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2418 (Properly parse rules > >>> for security groups) > >>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2419 (Password server > >>> issue) > >>> > >>> > >>> In addition we've following issues to receive fixes: > >>> > >>> - VR - DHCP/dnsmasq leases issue (reported by Ozhan) > >>> > >>> - Dynamic roles upgrade fixes: > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-10249 > >>> > >>> > >>> Please share any other issues you've found, or I've missed. Thanks, > >>> and continue testing RC1. > >>> > >>> > >>> - Rohit > >>> > >>> <https://cloudstack.apache.org> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> From: Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> > >>> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 11:18:27 AM > >>> To: Paul Angus; us...@cloudstack.apache.org; > >>> dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS) > >>> > >>> The same issue applies to any 4.9, 4.10 release. In case of 4.9, we > >>> had discussed this as a doc bug and so it must be documented part of > >>> the 4.11 release notes as well. > >>> > >>> > >>> There are two ways admin can migrate to dynamic roles post-upgrade: > >>> > >>> > >>> 1. Enable dynamic.apichecker.enabled to true which will use the > >>> default api mapping of rules from 4.8 commands.properties and > >>> automatic annotation based and (db-backed) dynamic rules from 4.9+. > >>> Or, > >>> > >>> 2. The migration script is only useful where admins were not using > >>> the default api rule mappings and they strictly want to > >>> check/migrate each API. This approach requires admins to go through > >>> new APIs and fix commands.properties before running the migration > >>> scriopt (we've been sharing the new/change API list in release notes, > for > >>> example: > >>> > http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-release-notes/en/4.9.3.0/api-changes.html#new-api-commands > ). > >>> (for reference, doc: > >>> > >>> http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-administration/ > >>> e > >>> n/latest/accounts.html#using-dynamic-roles) > >>> > >>> > >>> Unlike the dynamic API checker, the static checker does not even > >>> allow the root API to access all the APIs which is why post upgrade, > >>> if the UI calls any API that is not allowed for the root admin (in > >>> this case the quotaIsEnabled API) the UI will logout the user on API > >>> unauthorized failure which is what happened. > >>> > >>> > >>> So, we can discuss two fixes: > >>> > >>> - Like dynamic checker, let the static checker allow all APIs only to > >>> the root admin (id=1) (I would not prefer to change the legacy > >>> behaviour though) > >>> > >>> - During upgrade, if commands.properties is missing we set the global > >>> setting to true, i.e. switch to dynamic roles (which would happen if > >>> someone tries to upgrade from 4.5->4.11 using a new mgmt server if > >>> they fail to copy the commands.properties file from /usr/share or /etc > paths). > >>> > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> > >>> - Rohit > >>> > >>> <https://cloudstack.apache.org> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> > >>> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > >>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > >>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > >>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > >>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From: Paul Angus > >>> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 9:24:25 AM > >>> To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org > >>> Cc: Rohit Yadav; dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Daan Hoogland > >>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS) > >>> > >>> If I've understood the issue correctly, "not being able to log in if > upgrading > >>> from 4.5" is a blocker in my book. I don't think that it should be > the duty > >>> of the Admin, to fix our oversights. Migration to the use of dynamic > >>> roles is also broken as the command will be missing from > >>> commands.properties in the first place, so the 'migrated' commands > >>> will not be complete. > >>> > >>> As there will need to be an RC2, IMO this upgrade issue should be > >>> fixed as part of it. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> > >>> Paul Angus > >>> > >>> > >>> VP Technology > >>> paul.an...@shapeblue.com > >>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Boris Stoyanov [mailto:boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com] > >>> Sent: 22 January 2018 07:31 > >>> To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org > >>> Cc: Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com>; > >>> dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Daan Hoogland > >>> <daan.hoogl...@shapeblue.com> > >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS) > >>> > >>> Hi Paul, > >>> Migration script considers only what’s in the command.properties > >>> file, so if the ‘missing’ quotaIsEnabled=15 is not there it will not > >>> create a rule for it. As Rohit mentioned it’s a duty of the admin to > >>> take care of aligning this up. I’m also not big fan of having this > >>> described in release notes, but would like to be included > >>> automatically during upgrade. Main argument against it, its not a > blocker. > >>> > >>> Bobby. > >>> > >>> > >>> boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com > >>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > >>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 19 Jan 2018, at 19:04, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> OK, just to confirm ‘we’ the community have basically deprecated the > >>>> use of commands.properties? > >>>> > >>>> But for people upgrading from a version before dynamic roles, does > >>>> the migration script take into account (or need to take into > >>>> account) the ‘missing’ > >>>> quotaIsEnabled=15 parameter? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> paul.an...@shapeblue.com > >>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > >>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: Rohit Yadav > >>>> Sent: 19 January 2018 09:27 > >>>> To: users <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>; dev@cloudstack.apache.org; > >>>> Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> > >>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi Bobby, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Agree, it's not user-friendly which is why admins should migrate to > >>>> the dynamic roles feature. But I'm not sure if this is a blocker and > >>>> if an admin wants to stick to the old static (commands.properties) > >>>> way, they need to manage changes themselves. We may add something to > >>>> the release notes /cc @Paul Angus<mailto:paul.an...@shapeblue.com>. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> - Rohit > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Software Architect > >>>> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com<mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> > >>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> From: Boris Stoyanov > >>>> <boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com<mailto:boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com>> > >>>> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 2:51:32 PM > >>>> To: users > >>>> Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS) > >>>> > >>>> Hi Rohit, > >>>> > >>>> That doesn’t sound much user friendly what do you think? Can we look > >>>> for a way to automate this dependency in the upgrade process? > >>>> > >>>> Bobby. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com<mailto:boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com> > >>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > >>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 19 Jan 2018, at 10:50, Rohit Yadav > >>>>> <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com<mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Bobby, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I checked the 4.5-4.11 upgrade environment, due to the nature of > >>>>> how static checker with commands.properties work, admins will be > >>>>> required to add/update new API/ACLs in the commands.properties file. > >>>>> > >>>>> Adding the following to commands.properties file and restarting > >>>>> mgmt server fixes the issue: > >>>>> > >>>>> quotaIsEnabled=15 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Please continue testing, thanks. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> - Rohit > >>>>> > >>>>> <https://cloudstack.apache.org> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>> From: Boris Stoyanov > >>>>> <boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com<mailto:boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com>> > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 6:54:28 PM > >>>>> To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:us...@cloudstack.apache.org> > >>>>> Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS) > >>>>> > >>>>> I think I’ve hit a blocker when upgrading to 4.11 > >>>>> > >>>>> Here’s the jira id: > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-10236 > >>>>> > >>>>> I’ve upgraded from 4.5 to 4.11, then I’ve logged in with admin and > >>>>> got session expired immediately. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Boris Stoyanov > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com<mailto:boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com> > >>>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > >>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com<mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> > >>>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> > >>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > >>>>> @shapeblue > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 17 Jan 2018, at 8:42, Tutkowski, Mike > >>>>> <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com<mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com<mailto: > mike.tutkow...@netapp.com%3cmailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com>>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>> > >>>>> For the past couple days, I have been running the KVM managed-storage > >>>>> regression-test suite against RC1. > >>>>> > >>>>> With the exception of one issue (more on this below), all of these > tests have > >>>>> passed. > >>>>> > >>>>> Tomorrow I plan to start in on the VMware-related managed-storage > tests. > >>>>> > >>>>> Once I’ve completed running those, I expect to move on to the > XenServer-related > >>>>> managed-storage tests. > >>>>> > >>>>> I ran these XenServer and VMware tests just prior to RC1 being > created, so I > >>>>> suspect all of those tests will come back successful. > >>>>> > >>>>> Now, with regards to the one issue I found on KVM with managed > storage: > >>>>> > >>>>> It relates to a new feature whereby you can online migrate the > storage of a VM > >>>>> from NFS or Ceph to managed storage. > >>>>> > >>>>> During the code-review process, I made a change per a suggestion and > it > >>>>> introduced an issue with this feature. The solution is just a couple > lines of > >>>>> code and only impacts this one use case. If you are testing this > release > >>>>> candidate and don’t really care about this particular feature, it > should not at > >>>>> all impact your ability to test RC1. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks! > >>>>> Mike > >>>>> > >>>>> On Jan 15, 2018, at 4:33 AM, Rohit Yadav > >>>>> <ro...@apache.org<mailto:ro...@apache.org<mailto:ro...@apache.org% > 3cmailto:ro...@apache.org>>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi All, > >>>>> > >>>>> I've created a 4.11.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up for > >>>>> testing and a vote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Git Branch and Commit SH: > >>>>> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.11.0.0-RC20180115T1603 > >>>>> Commit: 1b8a532ba52127f388847690df70e65c6b46f4d4 > >>>>> > >>>>> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same > >>>>> location): > >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.11.0.0/ > >>>>> > >>>>> PGP release keys (signed using > 5ED1E1122DC5E8A4A45112C2484248210EE3D884): > >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS > >>>>> > >>>>> The vote will be open for 72 hours. > >>>>> > >>>>> 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) > >>>>> > >>>>> Additional information: > >>>>> > >>>>> For users' convenience, I've built packages from > >>>>> 1b8a532ba52127f388847690df70e65c6b46f4d4 and published RC1 > repository here: > >>>>> http://cloudstack.apt-get.eu/testing/4.11-rc1 > >>>>> > >>>>> The release notes are still work-in-progress, but the > systemvmtemplate > >>>>> upgrade section has been updated. You may refer the following for > >>>>> systemvmtemplate upgrade testing: > >>>>> > http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-release-notes/en/latest/index.html > >>>>> > >>>>> 4.11 systemvmtemplates are available from here: > >>>>> https://download.cloudstack.org/systemvm/4.11/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > > > >>> Rohit Yadav >
