Re: Review Request 28030: CLOUDSTACK-7911: Automation test cases for Usage test path

[SrikanteswaraRao Talluri]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/28030/#review72352
---

Ship it!


ada8cdce7009e41ddf37348cfac2d4f79592379e master

- SrikanteswaraRao Talluri


On Feb. 11, 2015, 9:30 a.m., Ashutosh Kelkar wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/28030/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Feb. 11, 2015, 9:30 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack and SrikanteswaraRao Talluri.
> 
> 
> Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-7911
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-7911
> 
> 
> Repository: cloudstack-git
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Automation test cases for Usage test path. More test cases to follow. This is 
> first patch.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   test/integration/testpaths/testpath_usage.py PRE-CREATION 
>   tools/marvin/marvin/config/test_data.py d5ed353 
>   tools/marvin/marvin/dbConnection.py 66c6cb1 
>   tools/marvin/marvin/lib/base.py e38c394 
>   tools/marvin/marvin/lib/utils.py 8788b3b 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28030/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ashutosh Kelkar
> 
>

Review Request 30990: CLOUDSTACK-8255: Adding secondary IP to correct ethernet interface present on the VM

[Gaurav Aradhye]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30990/
---

Review request for cloudstack and SrikanteswaraRao Talluri.


Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-8255
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8255


Repository: cloudstack-git


Description
---

In test_lb_secondary_ip.py test cases, secondary ip is added to eth0 interface. 
However in some of the VMs, this interface is absent and eth2 is present.

It is wise to list the ethernet interface first, and then use the ethernet 
interface present on the VM to add the secondary IP to, rather than hard coding 
the name of the ethernet interface.

Other change:
Use high end service offering for Hyperv VMs


Diffs
-

  test/integration/component/test_lb_secondary_ip.py ecf0985 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30990/diff/


Testing
---

Yes. Tested the SSH test cases.

SSH to VM using LB rule assigned to secondary IP of VM ... === TestName: 
test_11_ssh_to_secondary_ip | Status : SUCCESS ===
ok
SSH to VM using LB rule assigned to primary and secondary IP of VM ... SKIP: 
Failing-WIP
SSH to VM after deleting LB rule ... === TestName: test_13_delete_lb_rule | 
Status : SUCCESS ===
ok
ssh to vm after removing secondary ip from load balancer rule ... SKIP: Skip
ssh to vm after removing secondary ip from load balancer rule ... === TestName: 
test_15_remove_lb_rule_primary_ip | Status : SUCCESS
===
ok
ssh to vm after removing secondary ip from load balancer rule ... === TestName: 
test_16_delete_vm_from_lb_rule | Status : SUCCESS ===
ok
Verify LB rules after destroying and recovering VM ... === TestName: 
test_20_destroy_recover_vm | Status : SUCCESS ===
ok
Verify LB rule functioning with different algorithm ... === TestName: 
test_21_modify_lb_rule_algorithm | Status : SUCCESS ===
ok


--
Ran 19 tests in 2922.113s

OK (SKIP=14)


Thanks,

Gaurav Aradhye

Re: query about 4.4 usage

[Daan Hoogland]

Antoine,
Did you feed your patches back to the 4.4 branch and should we release
another 4.4 in your opinion?

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Antoine Coetsier
 wrote:
> Hello Daan and users,
>
> We at Exoscale are now using in Production a 4.4 CloudStack base + our
> patches after an extensive preproduction run with this version.
> Next migration is unlikely to be 4.5. Please, let¹s adopt all proper
> rebasing from one version to another in order not to have bugs fixed in
> smaller versions being shipped in higher ones.
>
> Antoine
>
>
> Le 11.02.15 18:53, « Daan Hoogland »  a écrit :
>
>>H,
>>
>>Today we had a talk at work (Schuberg Philis) about our CloudStack
>>strategy. We decided that we will keep at 4.4 until we have a good
>>test environment of our own and then skip to 4.6 or up, depending on
>>where we merge our redundant vpc work in. We don't have any time to
>>put energy in 4.5 and need some features that won't make it there. The
>>afore mentioned redundant vpcs, but also ipv6 for vpcs and ovm
>>support.
>>
>>What I am wondering now is:
>>Who else is on 4.4 in production systems?
>>What versions do you run?
>>How did you test it before going to production?
>>What are your migration plans?
>>
>>thanks,
>>--
>>Daan
>
>



-- 
Daan

Ans: About Instance Storage Live Migration on VMware

[Star Guo]

Yes, CloudStack 4.4.2 supports VOLUME live migration with the vm in running 
state ( ui and cloudmonkey ), on VMware vSphere. I have test the live migration 
with ROOT volume and DATA volume.
And the VOLUME live migration in CloudStack API is difference from VMware 
vCenter Storage vMotion which the all files of the VM (.vmdk, .vmx , .vmxf and 
.log etc) move to another VMFS of NFS storage.
My question is: Does CloudStack support Storage vMotion？ Not only volume live 
migration.
Thanks.

Best Regards,
Star Guo

-邮件原件-
发件人: Mike Tutkowski [mailto:mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com] 
发送时间: 2015年2月13日 13:32
收件人: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
主题: Re: Forward: About Instance Storage Live Migration on VMware

I am curious, when you say you used VMware's Storage vMotion, do you mean the 
intent was to live migrate the storage underlying one of your VMs? I was not 
aware that CloudStack supported this.

I believe CloudStack supports the offline migration of VM disks, but it seems 
to me that, say, offline migrating a root disk wouldn't bring along the config 
and log files that also shared the same datastore with that root disk (perhaps 
it should, though).

Maybe one of our VMware gurus can explain what is the expected behavior here.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Star Guo  wrote:

> Does any one know about that ?
>
> Best Regards,
> Star Guo
>
> -邮件原件-
> 发件人: Star Guo [mailto:st...@ceph.me]
> 发送时间: 2015年2月12日 9:24
> 收件人: us...@cloudstack.apache.org
> 主题: About Instance Storage Live Migration on VMware
>
> Hi, All,
>
>
>
>My env is cloudstack 4.4.2 + VMware 5.5, and it works well.
>
>I deploy an instance and try to migrate the ROOT disk to another 
> vmfs primary storage. After that I find the ROOT disk is in new vmfs 
> primary storage but the .vmx , .vmxf and .log etc still in the origin 
> vmfs primary storage.
>
>If I want to migrate the instance (all of the files in the floder 
> of the
> instance) to new vmfs primary storage, May CloudStack 4.4.2 Support to 
> do this ? Thanks.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Star Guo
>
>
>
>
>


--
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
*™*

Re: [MERGE] Support Granular SCSI disk controllers in CloudStack over VMware hypervisor

[Daan Hoogland]

Sateesh,

I would very much like it as well if you format your changes as a pull
request, as Rohit asked. It helps discussion and easy reviewing. You
just have to clone on github and start a pull request from the
'vmware-disk-controllers' branch on your clone to the master branch in
the apache repo. I can do that as well myself but as it is your merge
call...

thanks,


On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Sateesh Chodapuneedi
 wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Rohit Yadav [mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com]
>> Sent: 14 January 2015 14:46
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Support Granular SCSI disk controllers in CloudStack 
>> over VMware hypervisor
>>
>> Hi Sateesh,
>>
>> Can can send a Github PR for review (if you want to get a code review) and 
>> share code coverage wrt unit (and integration) tests. I
>> think if the code coverage is well above 80% I think everyone should be okay 
>> with the merge.
>>
>> Let me know if you need any help.
> Hi Rohit,
> Thanks for your comment. I had to be offline over last month due to some 
> personal urgency.
> Sure, I will look at the unit test/code coverage on the changes introduced 
> with this branch and get back on this.
> BTW, the code changes are sitting in ACS branch 'vmware-disk-controllers'.
>
> Regards,
> Sateesh
>>
>> On Wednesday 14 January 2015 09:06 AM, Sateesh Chodapuneedi wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I would like merge the branch 'vmware-disk-controllers' into master 
>> > branch. This branch contains implementation to support
>> Granular SCSI disk controllers in CloudStack over VMware hypervisor.
>> >
>> > This is specific to VMware hypervisor only. The code changes are in area 
>> > of vmware resource.
>> >
>> > All changes are being tracked using JIRA ticket [3] with code in ACS 
>> > branch 'vmware-disk-controllers'.
>> > Please see [2[ for Functional specification which was discussed in 
>> > proposal thread [1] below and talk [4] held at CCC EU 2014,
>> Budapest.
>> >
>> > Currently CloudStack supports following combinations only.
>> >  * DATA volumes - SCSI controller (LSI Logic Parallel) - Hard coded in 
>> > source code, no option for user to edit/choose the
>> controller type
>> >  * ROOT volumes - IDE or SCSI (LSI Logic Parallel) - Baed on value of 
>> > global configuration parameter
>> "vmware.root.disk.controller"
>> >
>> > For some guest operating systems like Windows 2012 R2, deploying instances 
>> > with LSI Parallel controller might result in failure to
>> boot as guest OS vendor is not shipping the OS with LSI Logic parallel 
>> drivers.
>> > OS Vendor is supporting/shipping LSI SAS controller as preferred.
>> >
>> > CloudStack should provide administrator the means to choose the type
>> > of disk controller (including sub types listed in introduction section 
>> > above) for an instance. The controller to be used by VM to
>> access virtual disk (volume) can decided for various reasons. Some of them 
>> are listed here,
>> > *   Some controllers are optimized for best performance over specific 
>> > backend infrastructure like SAN. Ex: VMware Paravirtual
>> SCSI
>> > *Compatibility of some controllers with VM's virtual hardware version 
>> > or guest operating system.
>> > *Operating system vendor recommendation and default set of drivers 
>> > distributed as part of operating system image. Ex:
>> Windows 8.1 ISO doesn't have Lsi Logic Parallel SCSI drivers by default. 
>> Hence a virtual disk attached to this controller won't
>> accessible during installation of OS using the ISO.
>> >
>> > Now CloudStack provides administrator options to specify disk controllers 
>> > to use for user instances at various ways.
>> > 1) Global configuration settings
>> > 2) Template settings (during registration of template)
>> > 3) Option to enable auto detection of the recommended disk controller for 
>> > the instance's guest operating system by vendor and
>> applicable virtual hardware version.
>> >
>> > Please let me know your comments.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Sateesh
>> >
>> > [1] http://markmail.org/thread/en4skoqu4mbitacs
>> > [2] Functional specification document -
>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/vI5cAg
>> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4787
>> > [4] http://ccceu2014.sched.org/event/5d24aad67443542c72b5fc51c25c090b
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> > From: Sateesh Chodapuneedi
>> > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 12:06 PM
>> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> > Subject: RE: Server 2012 R2 Bug on CS 4.4.0 with vmware hypervisor
>> >
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: Sateesh Chodapuneedi [mailto:sateesh.chodapune...@citrix.com]
>> >> Sent: 15 November 2014 14:06
>> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Michael Phillips
>> >> Subject: RE: Server 2012 R2 Bug on CS 4.4.0 with vmware hypervisor
>> >>
>> >> Hi Michael,
>> >>
>> >>> further clarification; CS adds the data disk to the VM but since
>> >>> it's listed as SCSI device 0:0, the

Re: Ans: About Instance Storage Live Migration on VMware

[Erik Weber]

According to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2701 it
should be supported.
Haven't tried it myself though.

-- 
Erik

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Star Guo  wrote:

> Yes, CloudStack 4.4.2 supports VOLUME live migration with the vm in
> running state ( ui and cloudmonkey ), on VMware vSphere. I have test the
> live migration with ROOT volume and DATA volume.
> And the VOLUME live migration in CloudStack API is difference from VMware
> vCenter Storage vMotion which the all files of the VM (.vmdk, .vmx , .vmxf
> and .log etc) move to another VMFS of NFS storage.
> My question is: Does CloudStack support Storage vMotion？ Not only volume
> live migration.
> Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
> Star Guo
>
> -邮件原件-
> 发件人: Mike Tutkowski [mailto:mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com]
> 发送时间: 2015年2月13日 13:32
> 收件人: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> 主题: Re: Forward: About Instance Storage Live Migration on VMware
>
> I am curious, when you say you used VMware's Storage vMotion, do you mean
> the intent was to live migrate the storage underlying one of your VMs? I
> was not aware that CloudStack supported this.
>
> I believe CloudStack supports the offline migration of VM disks, but it
> seems to me that, say, offline migrating a root disk wouldn't bring along
> the config and log files that also shared the same datastore with that root
> disk (perhaps it should, though).
>
> Maybe one of our VMware gurus can explain what is the expected behavior
> here.
>
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Star Guo  wrote:
>
> > Does any one know about that ?
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Star Guo
> >
> > -邮件原件-
> > 发件人: Star Guo [mailto:st...@ceph.me]
> > 发送时间: 2015年2月12日 9:24
> > 收件人: us...@cloudstack.apache.org
> > 主题: About Instance Storage Live Migration on VMware
> >
> > Hi, All,
> >
> >
> >
> >My env is cloudstack 4.4.2 + VMware 5.5, and it works well.
> >
> >I deploy an instance and try to migrate the ROOT disk to another
> > vmfs primary storage. After that I find the ROOT disk is in new vmfs
> > primary storage but the .vmx , .vmxf and .log etc still in the origin
> > vmfs primary storage.
> >
> >If I want to migrate the instance (all of the files in the floder
> > of the
> > instance) to new vmfs primary storage, May CloudStack 4.4.2 Support to
> > do this ? Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Star Guo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> *Mike Tutkowski*
> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> o: 303.746.7302
> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> *™*
>
>

Re: Review Request 30990: CLOUDSTACK-8255: Adding secondary IP to correct ethernet interface present on the VM

[SrikanteswaraRao Talluri]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30990/#review72360
---

Ship it!


e66ceaa254b21b3b365ade0682470bffa48c15b4 master

- SrikanteswaraRao Talluri


On Feb. 13, 2015, 11:49 a.m., Gaurav Aradhye wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/30990/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Feb. 13, 2015, 11:49 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack and SrikanteswaraRao Talluri.
> 
> 
> Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-8255
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8255
> 
> 
> Repository: cloudstack-git
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> In test_lb_secondary_ip.py test cases, secondary ip is added to eth0 
> interface. However in some of the VMs, this interface is absent and eth2 is 
> present.
> 
> It is wise to list the ethernet interface first, and then use the ethernet 
> interface present on the VM to add the secondary IP to, rather than hard 
> coding the name of the ethernet interface.
> 
> Other change:
> Use high end service offering for Hyperv VMs
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   test/integration/component/test_lb_secondary_ip.py ecf0985 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30990/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Yes. Tested the SSH test cases.
> 
> SSH to VM using LB rule assigned to secondary IP of VM ... === TestName: 
> test_11_ssh_to_secondary_ip | Status : SUCCESS ===
> ok
> SSH to VM using LB rule assigned to primary and secondary IP of VM ... SKIP: 
> Failing-WIP
> SSH to VM after deleting LB rule ... === TestName: test_13_delete_lb_rule | 
> Status : SUCCESS ===
> ok
> ssh to vm after removing secondary ip from load balancer rule ... SKIP: Skip
> ssh to vm after removing secondary ip from load balancer rule ... === 
> TestName: test_15_remove_lb_rule_primary_ip | Status : SUCCESS
> ===
> ok
> ssh to vm after removing secondary ip from load balancer rule ... === 
> TestName: test_16_delete_vm_from_lb_rule | Status : SUCCESS ===
> ok
> Verify LB rules after destroying and recovering VM ... === TestName: 
> test_20_destroy_recover_vm | Status : SUCCESS ===
> ok
> Verify LB rule functioning with different algorithm ... === TestName: 
> test_21_modify_lb_rule_algorithm | Status : SUCCESS ===
> ok
> 
> 
> --
> Ran 19 tests in 2922.113s
> 
> OK (SKIP=14)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gaurav Aradhye
> 
>

i18n on transifex.com

[Laszlo Hornyak]

Translation admins,

Could you add me (K0zka) to the CloudStack UI project as language
maintainer?

Thank you,
Laszlo

-- 

EOF

Re: i18n on transifex.com

[David Nalley]

Done

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Laszlo Hornyak
 wrote:
> Translation admins,
>
> Could you add me (K0zka) to the CloudStack UI project as language
> maintainer?
>
> Thank you,
> Laszlo
>
> --
>
> EOF