RE: Nicira NVP + CloudStack 4.1
Hi Hugo Thank you! Shimizu san You can check it for reference. CC: Shimazaki san and Nakajima san Thanks Kimi > -Original Message- > From: Hugo Trippaers [mailto:htrippa...@schubergphilis.com] > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 9:02 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Cc: Chip Childers; Kimihiko Kitase > Subject: RE: Nicira NVP + CloudStack 4.1 > > I've updated the documentation. > > Chip, can you pull commit 1201d623a7091517a1e26bc4b82c5daeea3c155f into > 4.1? It's just doc updates. > > The Jenkins build is here > http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-docs-niciranvp-mas > ter/ > > > (And this time I did do the rat check ;-) ) > > Hugo > > > -Original Message- > > From: Hugo Trippaers [mailto:trip...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:03 PM > > To: Chip Childers > > Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; h...@apache.org > > Subject: Re: Nicira NVP + CloudStack 4.1 > > > > Hey Chip, > > > > I still need to update the nvp plugin guide. It's a bit outdated and > > the new features are not in there yet. > > > > Also the admin guide makes no mention of SDN support at all. > > > > Guess I have some work to do there as well. I'll get to it ASAP. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Hugo > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On 22 mei 2013, at 20:13, Chip Childers wrote: > > > > > Hugo, > > > > > > Was the doc updated for the new 4.1 features? > > > > > > -chip > > > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:59:49PM +, Kimihiko Kitase wrote: > > >> Hello > > >> > > >> Are there setup guide for the configuration of Nicira NVP and > > >> CloudStack > > 4.1? > > >> > > >> Thanks > > >> Kimi > > >>
Re: Review Request: (CLOUDSTACK-528) fix some mistakes in configuration table which cause addSecondaryStorage failed when upgrade from 3.0.* to 4.*
On 24/05/13 7:19 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote: >It would indeed, but since we are not going to release a 4.0.3, I fixed >it in the 4.1 and master branches. > >At a minimum, this "fix" doesn't regress anything... so while I'm >surprised that we didn't run into this issue as reported, I don't see >that it's an issue to correct the syntax moving forward. > >Do you think we should have another corrective update that strips the >extra space characters that may be there on 4.0 installations? Yes, if someone is currently on CS 4.0 and say upgrades to 4.1 then schema-302to40.sql won't be executed for him but instead schema-40to41.sql would be executed, so in a nutshell the same changes need to be present in schema-40to41.sql > >-chip > >On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 09:49:12AM +, Nitin Mehta wrote: >> Would this not be a problem for folks who are already on 4.0 ? >> >> On 13/05/13 9:22 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote: >> >> > >> >--- >> >This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >> >https://reviews.apache.org/r/11088/#review20489 >> >--- >> > >> >Ship it! >> > >> > >> >In 4.1: >> > >> >commit 5ccdf7dc4ad86145633124b9540aadfbfc423f6f >> >Author: Wei Zhou >> >Date: Mon May 13 16:50:29 2013 +0100 >> > >> >CLOUDSTACK-528: Correct a bunch of mistakes in the 3.0.x to 4.0 db >> >script >> >Signed-off-by: Chip Childers >> > >> >- Chip Childers >> > >> > >> >On May 13, 2013, 3:38 p.m., Wei Zhou wrote: >> >> >> >> --- >> >> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >> >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/11088/ >> >> --- >> >> >> >> (Updated May 13, 2013, 3:38 p.m.) >> >> >> >> >> >> Review request for cloudstack and Chip Childers. >> >> >> >> >> >> Description >> >> --- >> >> >> >> There are some mistakes in configuration table. >> >> fixed them by this patch. >> >> >> >> >> >> This addresses bug CLOUDSTACK-528. >> >> >> >> >> >> Diffs >> >> - >> >> >> >> setup/db/db/schema-302to40.sql a947ac1 >> >> >> >> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11088/diff/ >> >> >> >> >> >> Testing >> >> --- >> >> >> >> Nicolas has tested it. >> >> We also need an additional patch for the following new issue >>(Advanced >> >>Network with Security Groups). >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Wei Zhou >> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
Re: Review Request: (CLOUDSTACK-1644) INFRA-5977: Testing ASFBot updates to reviewboard
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/9876/#review21043 --- foo bar baz "and then some stuff" http://www.foo.bar - ASF Subversion and Git Services On March 12, 2013, 11:04 a.m., Prasanna Santhanam wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/9876/ > --- > > (Updated March 12, 2013, 11:04 a.m.) > > > Review request for cloudstack and Prasanna Santhanam. > > > Description > --- > > (CLOUDSTACK-1644) INFRA-5977: Testing ASFBot updates to reviewboard > > > This addresses bug CLOUDSTACK-1644. > > > Diffs > - > > README.md 7b4d973 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/9876/diff/ > > > Testing > --- > > Strange loop. This is a test > > > Thanks, > > Prasanna Santhanam > >
Re: devcloud compatible with latest 4.2?
This seems to be an issue specific to latest 4.2 code. I tried same procedure with 4.1 and it worked. I've opened an issue here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2683 -Shane On Friday, May 24, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote: > How did you increase the memory? It's actually a bit tricky with Xen, > as the kernel splits out what's available to the VM guests vs the dom0 > host early on. Increasing the RAM for the devcloud guest will just > leave more memory for VMs to run in, not create more memory for > devcloud itself to run applications. > > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Shane Witbeck (mailto:sh...@digitalsanctum.com)> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm attempting to use the devcloud appliance referenced from the following: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/DevCloud > > > > with latest 4.2 code. Everything works great up until the point of spinning > > up the system VM's at which time I'm getting: > > > > WARN [xen.resource.CitrixResourceBase] (DirectAgent-21:) Catch Exception: > > class com.xensource.xenapi.Types$XenAPIException due to > > MEMORY_CONSTRAINT_VIOLATIONMemory limits must satisfy: static_min ? > > dynamic_min ? dynamic_max ? static_max > > MEMORY_CONSTRAINT_VIOLATIONMemory limits must satisfy: static_min ? > > dynamic_min ? dynamic_max ? static_max > > at com.xensource.xenapi.Types.checkResponse(Types.java:1936) > > at com.xensource.xenapi.Connection.dispatch(Connection.java:368) > > at > > com.cloud.hypervisor.xen.resource.XenServerConnectionPool$XenServerConnection.dispatch(XenServerConnectionPool.java:909) > > at com.xensource.xenapi.VM.setMemoryLimits(VM.java:3735) > > at > > com.cloud.hypervisor.xen.resource.CitrixResourceBase.setMemory(CitrixResourceBase.java:3530) > > at > > com.cloud.hypervisor.xen.resource.CitrixResourceBase.createVmFromTemplate(CitrixResourceBase.java:1240) > > at > > com.cloud.hypervisor.xen.resource.CitrixResourceBase.execute(CitrixResourceBase.java:1582) > > at > > com.cloud.hypervisor.xen.resource.XcpOssResource.execute(XcpOssResource.java:143) > > at > > com.cloud.hypervisor.xen.resource.CitrixResourceBase.executeRequest(CitrixResourceBase.java:546) > > at > > com.cloud.hypervisor.xen.resource.XcpOssResource.executeRequest(XcpOssResource.java:137) > > at > > com.cloud.agent.manager.DirectAgentAttache$Task.run(DirectAgentAttache.java:186) > > at java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.call(Executors.java:439) > > at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask$Sync.innerRun(FutureTask.java:303) > > at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:138) > > at > > java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.access$301(ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.java:98) > > at > > java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.run(ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.java:206) > > at > > java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.runTask(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:895) > > at > > java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:918) > > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:680) > > > > > > > > This appears to be coming from the xen api. I have also tried increasing > > the amount of memory to devcloud to 3G from the default 2G. > > > > Any ideas? > > > > > > Thanks, > > Shane > > > > >
4.1 release manager
Hi folks, Some time back I offered to be RM for 4.1.x , since then I took on the GSoC effort and won't have time to be the RM. Therefore the position is up for grabs. Any takers ? -Sebastien
Re: 4.1 release manager
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: > Hi folks, > > Some time back I offered to be RM for 4.1.x , since then I took on the > GSoC effort and won't have time to be the RM. > > Therefore the position is up for grabs. > > Any takers ? > can we get a brief description of the responsibilities? I just might be interested > > -Sebastien
Re: 4.1 release manager
On May 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Outback Dingo wrote: > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> Some time back I offered to be RM for 4.1.x , since then I took on the >> GSoC effort and won't have time to be the RM. >> >> Therefore the position is up for grabs. >> >> Any takers ? >> > > can we get a brief description of the responsibilities? I just might be > interested You would be responsible to get the 4.1.x releases out the door. Keep track of the JIRA bugs that need to be applied to the 4.1 branch, cherry-pick them, do some minimal testing and conflict resolution. Then prepare the source artifacts, signature, release notes. And finally start the [VOTE] threads. Basically what Joe has been doing for 4.0.x, am I sure he can elaborate and my one sentence description. I am sure, Chip, Joe, myself and others would help you out to get in the groove. -Sebastien > > >> >> -Sebastien
Re: 4.1 release manager
On May 25, 2013, at 10:16 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: > > On May 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Outback Dingo wrote: > >> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> Some time back I offered to be RM for 4.1.x , since then I took on the >>> GSoC effort and won't have time to be the RM. >>> >>> Therefore the position is up for grabs. >>> >>> Any takers ? >> >> can we get a brief description of the responsibilities? I just might be >> interested > > You would be responsible to get the 4.1.x releases out the door. Keep track > of the JIRA bugs that need to be applied to the 4.1 branch, cherry-pick them, > do some minimal testing and conflict resolution. Then prepare the source > artifacts, signature, release notes. And finally start the [VOTE] threads. > > Basically what Joe has been doing for 4.0.x, am I sure he can elaborate and > my one sentence description. > > I am sure, Chip, Joe, myself and others would help you out to get in the > groove. > > -Sebastien The only requirement is that the RM needs to be a committer for the technical aspects of the work. However, we might be able to work something out if a non committer wanted to do this. > > >> >> >>> >>> -Sebastien > >
Re: 4.1 release manager
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Chip Childers wrote: > On May 25, 2013, at 10:16 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Outback Dingo > wrote: > > > >> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Sebastien Goasguen >wrote: > >> > >>> Hi folks, > >>> > >>> Some time back I offered to be RM for 4.1.x , since then I took on the > >>> GSoC effort and won't have time to be the RM. > >>> > >>> Therefore the position is up for grabs. > >>> > >>> Any takers ? > >> > >> can we get a brief description of the responsibilities? I just might be > >> interested > > > > You would be responsible to get the 4.1.x releases out the door. Keep > track of the JIRA bugs that need to be applied to the 4.1 branch, > cherry-pick them, do some minimal testing and conflict resolution. Then > prepare the source artifacts, signature, release notes. And finally start > the [VOTE] threads. > > > > Basically what Joe has been doing for 4.0.x, am I sure he can elaborate > and my one sentence description. > > > > I am sure, Chip, Joe, myself and others would help you out to get in the > groove. > > > > -Sebastien > > The only requirement is that the RM needs to be a committer for the > technical aspects of the work. However, we might be able to work > something out if a non committer wanted to do this. > >From my opinion on being an RM, I dont believe the need to be a commiter should exist. However I have no issues being a commiter, Im not inclined to do major works, until I shore up the work Ive done, which is very XCP specific. In my opinion, an RM should have some autonomy in management. Ive run R&D shops for a decade, We always designated a non-dev type to manage the release, to remove the politics from the development and build process. And all senior development leaders would have to sign off on a release as being ready from their code perspective. For us it helped our developers take ownership of issues as they arose. Aside from that Id like to contribute, in light of responsibilities I do have the experience. and well some of the CS people know me and what Ive been up. :) Ill throw my hat in the ring. Id be more then happy to help. > > > > > > >> > >> > >>> > >>> -Sebastien > > > > >
Re: Convention on UUID column
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Min Chen wrote: > +1 on enforcing it through db constraints. Create a JIRA ticket > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2676 to track this issue. > +1 enforce db constraints. May be have an options/feature in dbcreator to enforce this check and populate in case it's missing or wrong. Cheers. > > Thanks > -min > > On 5/24/13 6:20 AM, "Alex Huang" wrote: > > >+1 on adding the constraints. Just make sure you add them after > >upgrading the data. > > > >Populating with id in the upgrade prevents exactly the problem you've > >described. That's why we're doing it. > > > > > >--Alex > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Nitin Mehta [mailto:nitin.me...@citrix.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:09 PM > >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: Convention on UUID column > >> > >> Agree with Koushik. Lets enforce the not null constraint on all the > >>UUID fields > >> now that we are populating it. > >> > >> Also wanted to ask why we are populating it with the ID and not a > >>generated > >> UUID ? Doesn't break the backward compatibilty going either ways but the > >> later is more consistent right and can be used in future as they are > >>always > >> unique across the system - say for storing templates directly under > >>?UUID of > >> the template/vol/snapshot on sec. storage than using the folder > >>structure of > >> templates/account_id/template_id/real_template ? > >> Clients who have hardcoded against CS for system vm ids, service > >>offering ids > >> etc. will break definitely though - is that ok ? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -Nitin > >> > >> On 24/05/13 9:26 AM, "Koushik Das" wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >It is better to add constraints in the db for all uuid fields. That way > >> >uuid field will never get missed out. I see that for some tables there > >> >is a NOT NULL constraint. > >> > > >> >-Koushik > >> > > >> >> -Original Message- > >> >> From: Min Chen [mailto:min.c...@citrix.com] > >> >> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 4:09 AM > >> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> >> Subject: Convention on UUID column > >> >> > >> >> Hi there, > >> >> > >> >> During API refactoring efforts, Rohit and I run into several issues > >> >>due to empty UUID column for existing DB entries. Since UUID was > >> >>introduced later in 3.0.x, we have to always conditionally handle > >> >>existing customers with empty UUID columns for different entities, > >> >>causing much headache for various upgrade cases. To make sure that we > >> >>have a consistent upgrade base for all 4.1 customers later, in > >> >>schema-410to420.sql, we have added sql scripts to populate UUID > >> >>column of all pre-4.1 schema tables with values from their ID column > >> >>if UUID column is NULL. To make this work properly, we require that > >> >>all UUID columns should be populated with values when you add new > >> >>data into both pre-4.1 schema or post-4.1 schema. I just noticed that > >> >>this assumption may not be well known to community, since I am seeing > >> >>this sql in schema-410to420.sql: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`vm_template` (id, unique_name, name, public, > >> >>created, type, hvm, bits, account_id, url, checksum, enable_password, > >> >>display_text, format, guest_os_id, featured, cross_zones, > >> >>hypervisor_type) > >> >> > >> >> VALUES (10, 'routing-10', 'SystemVM Template (LXC)', 0, now(), > >> >>'SYSTEM', 0, 64, 1, > >> >>'http://download.cloud.com/templates/acton/acton-systemvm- > >> >> 02062012.qcow2.bz2', '2755de1f9ef2ce4d6f2bee2efbb4da92', 0, > >> 'SystemVM > >> >>Template (LXC)', 'QCOW2', 15, 0, 1, 'LXC'); > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Instead, this should be modified as: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`vm_template` (id, uuid, unique_name, name, > >> >>public, created, type, hvm, bits, account_id, url, checksum, > >> >>enable_password, display_text, format, guest_os_id, featured, > >> >>cross_zones, > >> >>hypervisor_type) > >> >> > >> >> VALUES (10, UUID(), 'routing-10', 'SystemVM Template (LXC)', 0, > >> >>now(), 'SYSTEM', 0, 64, 1, > >> >>'http://download.cloud.com/templates/acton/acton- > >> >> systemvm-02062012.qcow2.bz2', '2755de1f9ef2ce4d6f2bee2efbb4da92', 0, > >> >>'SystemVM Template (LXC)', 'QCOW2', 15, 0, 1, 'LXC'); > >> >> > >> >> I have made this fix in master, but want to raise this topic to get > >> >>community's attention on this. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks > >> >> -min > >> >> > >> > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Do we need a 4.0.3?
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > Hi all, > > We apparently have a regression in 4.0.2 that will break new deployments > on Ceph RDB, and I was also CC'ed on another fix last week that could > apply to the 4.0.x branch. > > The thought was that we would not have another release in the 4.0.x > branch because we're so close to 4.1.0, but right now it's unclear how > quickly 4.1.0 will be released. > > So the question is: Should we go ahead and do a 4.0.3 release? > Can't we go for a minor maintainace bug fix release as 4.0.2-1 or something? I think it's time to end lifecycle for the 4.0.x release. Cheers. > > It's relatively easy for me to pull in the patches and roll up a > release. What I'm concerned about is distracting folks from the 4.1.0 > process to take time to vote - if done correctly, the VOTE can be a > time-consuming process. > > Thoughts? > > Best, > > jzb > -- > Joe Brockmeier > j...@zonker.net > Twitter: @jzb > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ >
Re: How to seperate the user portal and admin portal？
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:20 AM, sx chen wrote: > hello，I want to seperate the user portal and admin portal,So admin and user > will login to different server and seperate from each other. Can you give > me some suggestion. > another mgr server for user only and disable some functions,Is it possible? > Totally possible, the present CloudStack UI uses CloudStack APIs to interact with the mgmt server. You can write your own portal based on your needs using these APIs, for example create a backbonejs based single page app portal which interacts asynchronously with the mgmt server using the json based APIs. Search the documentation area on the website on how to get started, or start hacking using firebug or something. Hope this helps. Cheers.
Re: [ACS42] System VM's are failed to start with NPE with latest master(VMWARE)
Hi Abhi, can you share the workaround for fixing the issue we were having for building systemvms for VMWare. I don't see any commit in tools/appliance related to it, in case it's already fixed is the buildjob on jenkins producing good enough VMWare systemvm templates? Cheers. On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Sailaja Mada wrote: > Hi, > > With latest master , System VM's are failed to start with NPE. Is there > any issue with recent fixes ? ( VMWARE) > > 2013-05-16 17:12:20,523 DEBUG [cloud.capacity.CapacityManagerImpl] > (secstorage-1:null) release cpu from host: 1, old used: 0,reserved: 0, > actual total: 9572, total with overprovisioning: 9572; new used: > 0,reserved:0; movedfromreserved: false,moveToReserveredfalse > 2013-05-16 17:12:20,523 DEBUG [cloud.capacity.CapacityManagerImpl] > (secstorage-1:null) release mem from host: 1, old used: 0,reserved: 0, > total: 17166258176; new used: 0,reserved:0; movedfromreserved: > false,moveToReserveredfalse > 2013-05-16 17:12:20,524 WARN > [storage.secondary.SecondaryStorageManagerImpl] (secstorage-1:null) > Exception while trying to start secondary storage vm > java.lang.NullPointerException > at > com.cloud.capacity.CapacityManagerImpl.postStateTransitionEvent(CapacityManagerImpl.java:684) > at > com.cloud.capacity.CapacityManagerImpl.postStateTransitionEvent(CapacityManagerImpl.java:90) > at > com.cloud.utils.fsm.StateMachine2.transitTo(StateMachine2.java:117) > at > com.cloud.vm.VirtualMachineManagerImpl.stateTransitTo(VirtualMachineManagerImpl.java:1251) > at > com.cloud.vm.VirtualMachineManagerImpl.changeState(VirtualMachineManagerImpl.java:660) > at > com.cloud.vm.VirtualMachineManagerImpl.advanceStart(VirtualMachineManagerImpl.java:817) > at > com.cloud.vm.VirtualMachineManagerImpl.start(VirtualMachineManagerImpl.java:547) > at > com.cloud.vm.VirtualMachineManagerImpl.start(VirtualMachineManagerImpl.java:540) > at > com.cloud.storage.secondary.SecondaryStorageManagerImpl.startSecStorageVm(SecondaryStorageManagerImpl.java:262) > at > com.cloud.storage.secondary.SecondaryStorageManagerImpl.allocCapacity(SecondaryStorageManagerImpl.java:687) > at > com.cloud.storage.secondary.SecondaryStorageManagerImpl.expandPool(SecondaryStorageManagerImpl.java:1303) > at > com.cloud.secstorage.PremiumSecondaryStorageManagerImpl.scanPool(PremiumSecondaryStorageManagerImpl.java:123) > at > com.cloud.secstorage.PremiumSecondaryStorageManagerImpl.scanPool(PremiumSecondaryStorageManagerImpl.java:50) > at > com.cloud.vm.SystemVmLoadScanner.loadScan(SystemVmLoadScanner.java:104) > at > com.cloud.vm.SystemVmLoadScanner.access$100(SystemVmLoadScanner.java:33) > at > com.cloud.vm.SystemVmLoadScanner$1.reallyRun(SystemVmLoadScanner.java:81) > at > com.cloud.vm.SystemVmLoadScanner$1.run(SystemVmLoadScanner.java:72) > at > java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.call(Executors.java:471) > at > java.util.concurrent.FutureTask$Sync.innerRunAndReset(FutureTask.java:351) > at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.runAndReset(FutureTask.java:178) > at > java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.access$201(ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.java:165) > at > java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.run(ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.java:267) > at > java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1110) > at > java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:603) > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:679) > 2013-05-16 17:12:20,526 INFO > [storage.secondary.SecondaryStorageManagerImpl] (secstorage-1:null) Unable > to start secondary storage vm for standby capacity, secStorageVm vm Id : 4, > will recycle it and start a new one > 2013-05-16 17:12:20,529 DEBUG [cloud.vm.VirtualMachineManagerImpl] > (secstorage-1:null) VM is already stopped: VM[SecondaryStorageVm|s-4-VM] > 2013-05-16 17:12:20,537 DEBUG [cloud.capacity.CapacityManagerImpl] > (secstorage-1:null) VM state transitted from :Stopped to Expunging with > event: ExpungeOperationvm's original host id: null new host id: null host > id before state transition: null > 2013-05-16 17:12:20,540 DEBUG [cloud.vm.VirtualMachineManagerImpl] > (secstorage-1:null) Destroying vm VM[SecondaryStorageVm|s-4-VM] > > Thanks, > Sailaja.M >
