RE: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries
The proposal said: - "- On CloudStack's Installation Guide > Host KVM Installation[²], we add a section guiding users to install the qemu-kvm-ev binaries, if they are using CentOS 7. - The packages that we will guide users to install will be the latest provided by the official CentOS site[³] (the current latest version is '2.12.0-44.1.el7_8.1.x86_64')." - There's no mention of removing support for anything. If there is an intention removing support for existing components as part of this, then I agree completely with Rohit's -1 on it. Kind Regards Paul Angus -Original Message- From: Wei ZHOU Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 7:06 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries oh wait, is there any word saying removing the support for centos7 with stock qemu ? -Wei On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 at 07:38, Rohit Yadav wrote: > I had assumed this was a non-technical discussion/vote where the > changes are made in docs on suggested changes to how CloudStack is > deployed and used with CentOS7. I assumed this will follow as a doc PR to the > QIG. > > Changes to docs aren't normally considered technical as per our > project bylaws as they don't impact changes in source code or > releases. Three different PMCs have already advised on this thread > that voting isn't mandatory for this. > > However, assuming Daniel has followed the bylaws and is suggesting > this as a technical change that removes support in source code or > releases, then I oppose such a change. > > -1 (binding/veto) if we're going to technically remove support for > centos7 with stock qemu, that is in source code and > packaging/releases. CentOS7 will EOL until 2024 and stock support should be > supported until then. > > Regards. > > > > > > From: Daniel Augusto Veronezi Salvador > Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 2:31:21 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries > > Rohit, > > As we are deciding a requirement for deploying ACS + KVM + CentOS 7, I > see it as an important technical decision, that is why I started the > voting thread. The discussion was made via another thread[¹]; > therefore, this vote was created with the intention to summarize the > discussion we had and then to officially approve (or not approve) the idea > discussed. > > Finally, to emphasize, this is the voting thread, intended to reflect > the decision we seem to have agreed upon in the other thread[¹]. I > would kindly ask to avoid polluting this thread with discussions not > related to the voting itself. Furthermore, as already stated, there is > a consensus in the discussion thread; therefore, there is no harm in > giving a +1 here. > > Best regards, > Daniel Salvador > > [¹] https://lists.apache.org/thread/z7s0774n72v4o9dnl140wvm030bxovjd > > On 01/03/2022 16:56, Rohit Yadav wrote: > > (phone issue sent draft accidentally)... where consensus is built > without opposition. Therefore this vote thread isn't necessary. > > > > Refer to project bylaws https://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html > > > > Regards. > > > > From: Daniel Augusto Veronezi Salvador > > Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 5:08:55 PM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries > > > > Hi, Andrija and Paul, > > > > This is the vote thread, not the discussion one. The goal of this > > thread is to account votes to verify the agreement of the community > > with the proposed solution that we seem to have in the discussion > > thread. For discussions, please refer to the discussion thread[¹]. > > The goal is to collect +1 and -1 to show the community agreement > > with the proposal that we discussed. > > > > Best regards, > > Daniel Salvador > > > > > > [¹] https://lists.apache.org/thread/z7s0774n72v4o9dnl140wvm030bxovjd > > > > > > On 28/02/2022 20:04, Andrija Panic wrote: > >> What Paul said... > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 22:01, Paul Angus wrote: > >> > >>> A vote really isn't required for this. > >>> > >>> No one disagrees, so just do it. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Kind Regards > >>> > >>> > >>> Paul Angus > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: Wei ZHOU > >>> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 4:19 PM > >>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries > >>> > >>> +1 (binding) > >>> > >>> Daniel, does this need to be approved by the PMC ? > >>> > >>> -Wei > >>> > >>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 17:08, Daniel Salvador > >>> > > >>> wrote: > >>> > Hi all, this is the vote thread that emerged from the thread > "[Discussion] CentOS 7 KVM binaries"[¹]. > > As discussed in the thread, users already install (without any > official guide provided by the community) the qemu-kvm-ev binary > in their environments to run CloudStack + CentOS + KVM with all features. > > With that said, to solve the situation d
Re: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries
As I explained in my email, my vote is conditional with the stated assumption applicable only if this is a technical vote; Daniel advised in his last email that this is a technical decision vote that I assume as changes to source code and releases, therefore I had to vote my -1. If this is still a non-technical vote (as defined in the bylaws [1], i.e. decision/vote that does not affect changes in source code or releases) and changes are "only limited to the docs" as proposed in the vote then I'm +1. [1] https://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html Regards. From: Paul Angus Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 13:31 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: RE: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries The proposal said: - "- On CloudStack's Installation Guide > Host KVM Installation[²], we add a section guiding users to install the qemu-kvm-ev binaries, if they are using CentOS 7. - The packages that we will guide users to install will be the latest provided by the official CentOS site[³] (the current latest version is '2.12.0-44.1.el7_8.1.x86_64')." - There's no mention of removing support for anything. If there is an intention removing support for existing components as part of this, then I agree completely with Rohit's -1 on it. Kind Regards Paul Angus -Original Message- From: Wei ZHOU Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 7:06 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries oh wait, is there any word saying removing the support for centos7 with stock qemu ? -Wei On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 at 07:38, Rohit Yadav wrote: > I had assumed this was a non-technical discussion/vote where the > changes are made in docs on suggested changes to how CloudStack is > deployed and used with CentOS7. I assumed this will follow as a doc PR to the > QIG. > > Changes to docs aren't normally considered technical as per our > project bylaws as they don't impact changes in source code or > releases. Three different PMCs have already advised on this thread > that voting isn't mandatory for this. > > However, assuming Daniel has followed the bylaws and is suggesting > this as a technical change that removes support in source code or > releases, then I oppose such a change. > > -1 (binding/veto) if we're going to technically remove support for > centos7 with stock qemu, that is in source code and > packaging/releases. CentOS7 will EOL until 2024 and stock support should be > supported until then. > > Regards. > > > > > > From: Daniel Augusto Veronezi Salvador > Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 2:31:21 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries > > Rohit, > > As we are deciding a requirement for deploying ACS + KVM + CentOS 7, I > see it as an important technical decision, that is why I started the > voting thread. The discussion was made via another thread[¹]; > therefore, this vote was created with the intention to summarize the > discussion we had and then to officially approve (or not approve) the idea > discussed. > > Finally, to emphasize, this is the voting thread, intended to reflect > the decision we seem to have agreed upon in the other thread[¹]. I > would kindly ask to avoid polluting this thread with discussions not > related to the voting itself. Furthermore, as already stated, there is > a consensus in the discussion thread; therefore, there is no harm in > giving a +1 here. > > Best regards, > Daniel Salvador > > [¹] https://lists.apache.org/thread/z7s0774n72v4o9dnl140wvm030bxovjd > > On 01/03/2022 16:56, Rohit Yadav wrote: > > (phone issue sent draft accidentally)... where consensus is built > without opposition. Therefore this vote thread isn't necessary. > > > > Refer to project bylaws https://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html > > > > Regards. > > > > From: Daniel Augusto Veronezi Salvador > > Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 5:08:55 PM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries > > > > Hi, Andrija and Paul, > > > > This is the vote thread, not the discussion one. The goal of this > > thread is to account votes to verify the agreement of the community > > with the proposed solution that we seem to have in the discussion > > thread. For discussions, please refer to the discussion thread[¹]. > > The goal is to collect +1 and -1 to show the community agreement > > with the proposal that we discussed. > > > > Best regards, > > Daniel Salvador > > > > > > [¹] https://lists.apache.org/thread/z7s0774n72v4o9dnl140wvm030bxovjd > > > > > > On 28/02/2022 20:04, Andrija Panic wrote: > >> What Paul said... > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 22:01, Paul Angus wrote: > >> > >>> A vote really isn't required for this. > >>> > >>> No one disagrees, so just do it. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Kind Regards > >>> > >>> > >>> Paul Angus > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: Wei ZHOU > >>> Sent:
Re: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries
I don`t want to "pollute" the vote thread, as we should keep discussions on the proper thread (Discussion here [1]). However, we are already in such a situation. I hope that I can add some context and clarify a few things. @Daniel, please correct me if I misunderstood anything or my raised points are not aligned with the respective Discussion and Vote threads. Here goes my point of view regarding. 1. Why this is a technical vote: 1.1 The PR [2] is not moving forward due to the fact that CentOS stock Qemu does not support the feature added; 1.2 it will impact on code being accepted in case of "+1" or blocked in case the vote does not pass; 1.3 If this vote does pass, we need to change the PRs tests by adding "qemu-kvm-ev" package in Marvin CentOS7 test environments. 2. Why I don't think this is a drop of support: 2.1 From what I understood, the proposal does not state that CloudStack will officially drop support for CentOS7 "stock" packages; 2.2 those running CentOS7 WITHOUT "qemu-kvm-ev" packages already are not able to perform some actions and they will never be with the current "stock" packages; 2.3 there will be no "backward" compatibility issues for them, as they are still not able to perform such operations. 2.4 those running CentOS7 WITHOUT "qemu-kvm-ev" will remain capable of doing what their distro offers support. 3. Why this vote is relevant for MOST of the community 3.1 Those running Ubuntu or CentOS7 WITH "qemu-kvm-ev" will be able to have critical and relevant features as users will be able to follow the instructions on documentation and the PRs blocked will finally be able to be merged; 3.2 documentation will be clear and help users to make their own decision and take any risks into account. I want to stress how relevant this is and that most (if not all) users with CentOS7 would be willing to change their packages in order to have the new features. With that Said, I am +1 (binding). [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/z7s0774n72v4o9dnl140wvm030bxovjd [2] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/5297 On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 9:34 AM Rohit Yadav wrote: > As I explained in my email, my vote is conditional with the stated > assumption applicable only if this is a technical vote; Daniel advised in > his last email that this is a technical decision vote that I assume as > changes to source code and releases, therefore I had to vote my -1. > > If this is still a non-technical vote (as defined in the bylaws [1], i.e. > decision/vote that does not affect changes in source code or releases) and > changes are "only limited to the docs" as proposed in the vote then I'm +1. > > [1] https://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html > > > Regards. > > > From: Paul Angus > Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 13:31 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: RE: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries > > The proposal said: > - > "- On CloudStack's Installation Guide > Host KVM Installation[²], we add a > section guiding users to install the qemu-kvm-ev binaries, if they are > using CentOS 7. > - The packages that we will guide users to install will be the latest > provided by the official CentOS site[³] (the current latest version is > '2.12.0-44.1.el7_8.1.x86_64')." > - > > There's no mention of removing support for anything. If there is an > intention removing support for existing components as part of this, then I > agree completely with Rohit's -1 on it. > > > > Kind Regards > > > Paul Angus > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Wei ZHOU > Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 7:06 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries > > oh wait, is there any word saying removing the support for centos7 with > stock qemu ? > > -Wei > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 at 07:38, Rohit Yadav > wrote: > > > I had assumed this was a non-technical discussion/vote where the > > changes are made in docs on suggested changes to how CloudStack is > > deployed and used with CentOS7. I assumed this will follow as a doc PR > to the QIG. > > > > Changes to docs aren't normally considered technical as per our > > project bylaws as they don't impact changes in source code or > > releases. Three different PMCs have already advised on this thread > > that voting isn't mandatory for this. > > > > However, assuming Daniel has followed the bylaws and is suggesting > > this as a technical change that removes support in source code or > > releases, then I oppose such a change. > > > > -1 (binding/veto) if we're going to technically remove support for > > centos7 with stock qemu, that is in source code and > > packaging/releases. CentOS7 will EOL until 2024 and stock support should > be supported until then. > > > > Regards. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Daniel Augusto Veronezi Salvador > > Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 2:31:21 AM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries > > > > Rohit, > > > > As we are decidi
Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 (RC2)
+1 (binding) Regards, Nicolas Vazquez From: Harikrishna Patnala Date: Wednesday, 2 March 2022 at 04:02 To: dev Cc: users Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 (RC2) +1 Tested on a VMware environment with VM and volume operations on NFS and Datastore Cluster storage types and a few network operations. Thanks, Harikrishna From: Rohit Yadav Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 1:20 AM To: dev Cc: users Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 (RC2) +1 (binding) Regards. From: Gabriel Br?scher Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 9:41:25 PM To: dev Cc: users Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 (RC2) +1 on continuing with RC2 Vote. On Tue, Mar 1, 2022, 17:03 Vladimir Petrov wrote: > Hi all, > > Voting +1 > > I did a lot of upgrade tests with pre-RC, RC1 and RC2 versions, using > different hypervisors and from different versions (4.11, 4.13, 4.15.2, > 4.16.0). I also tested main workflows and basic operations and haven't > found a single issue. > > Best wishes, > Vladi > > > Suresh Anaparti wrote: > > > Hi All, > > I have created a 4.16.1.0 release (RC2), with the following artifacts up > for testing and a vote: > > Git Branch and Commit SHA: > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/tree/4.16.1.0-RC20220225T1901 > Commit: cad9332082a1f85eedc30cf547ae28224be170c2 > > Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same > location): > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.16.1.0/ > > PGP release keys (signed using D6E0581ECF8A2FBE3FF6B3C9D7CEAE3A9E71D0AA): > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS > > The vote will be open until 2nd March 2022. > > 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) > > For users convenience, the packages from this release candidate (RC2) and > 4.16.1 systemvm templates are available here: > https://download.cloudstack.org/testing/4.16.1.0-RC2/ > https://download.cloudstack.org/systemvm/4.16/ > > Documentation is not published yet, but the following may be referenced > for upgrade related tests: > (there's a new 4.16.1 systemvm template to be registered prior to upgrade) > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/tree/4.16/source/upgrading/upgrade > > NOTES on the issues fixed in this RC2 release: > > (these do *NOT* require a full retest if you were testing RC1 already - > just if you were affected by these issues): > - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6017 (regression in > register template form > when select/unselect check boxes using space in keyboard) > - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6026 (affects volumes on > managed storages when > stopping or migrating a VM) > - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6038 (regression in SSVM > scaling down behavior, > new config 'secstorage.vm.auto.scale.down' added to control scaling down) > > > Regards, > Suresh > > > > > > > >
Re: How are you monitoring Cloudstack?
Hi! Another nudge on the $subject in case people missed this. If you have a functioning way of monitoring Cloudstack & co in your organisation I'd like to hear about it. It doesn't have to be anything exotic, so don't be shy as long as we have anything to talk about. Thanks :) On 2022-02-21 14:38, Nux! wrote: Hi folks, If anyone cares to share (on or off list) with me a few words about how they are monitoring Cloudstack and related infrastructure that'd be lovely. I'm trying to find out what are the choices currently and how we can improve the overall experience. Don't be shy! Cheers
[GitHub] [cloudstack-cloudmonkey] Pearl1594 commented on pull request #111: Support for auto-completion of storage pool related APIs
Pearl1594 commented on pull request #111: URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-cloudmonkey/pull/111#issuecomment-1056849684 Yes @DaanHoogland this is ready for testing. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cloudstack.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 (RC2)
+1 (binding) tested vm lifecycle on vmware70u3. -Wei On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 16:09, Suresh Anaparti wrote: > Hi All, > > I have created a 4.16.1.0 release (RC2), with the following artifacts up > for testing and a vote: > > Git Branch and Commit SHA: > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/tree/4.16.1.0-RC20220225T1901 > Commit: cad9332082a1f85eedc30cf547ae28224be170c2 > > Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same > location): > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.16.1.0/ > > PGP release keys (signed using D6E0581ECF8A2FBE3FF6B3C9D7CEAE3A9E71D0AA): > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS > > The vote will be open until 2nd March 2022. > > 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) > > For users convenience, the packages from this release candidate (RC2) and > 4.16.1 systemvm templates are available here: > https://download.cloudstack.org/testing/4.16.1.0-RC2/ > https://download.cloudstack.org/systemvm/4.16/ > > Documentation is not published yet, but the following may be referenced > for upgrade related tests: > (there's a new 4.16.1 systemvm template to be registered prior to upgrade) > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/tree/4.16/source/upgrading/upgrade > > NOTES on the issues fixed in this RC2 release: > > (these do *NOT* require a full retest if you were testing RC1 already - > just if you were affected by these issues): > - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6017 (regression in > register template form > when select/unselect check boxes using space in keyboard) > - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6026 (affects volumes on > managed storages when > stopping or migrating a VM) > - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6038 (regression in SSVM > scaling down behavior, > new config 'secstorage.vm.auto.scale.down' added to control scaling down) > > > Regards, > Suresh > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries
@Gabriel has summarized everything very well.
This proposal only adds a requirement (makes it clear) in our
documentation for KVM + CentOS 7 (please, refer to the discussion
thread[¹] to understand why it is necessary), which is what everybody
(according to the discussion we had in the mailing list) is already
applying in production environments. Therefore, we would only make this
requirement clear to everybody, which would in turn enable us to move
forward with KVM improvements (such as my PR that improves the snapshot
process[²]). It (the discussion we had) never addressed dropping support
for CentOS 7.
Regarding Rohit's comment ("However, assuming Daniel has followed the
bylaws and is suggesting this as a technical change that removes support
in source code or releases..."), I never suggested a drop of support for
CentOS 7. I don't know how that conclusion was derived.
To emphasize, this proposal do not address dropping support for CentOS
7. Please, review the discussion thread[¹] and the proposal and
reconsider your votes.
Best regards,
Daniel Salvador
[¹] https://lists.apache.org/thread/z7s0774n72v4o9dnl140wvm030bxovjd
[²] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/5297
On 02/03/2022 06:47, Gabriel Bräscher wrote:
I don`t want to "pollute" the vote thread, as we should keep discussions on
the proper thread (Discussion here [1]).
However, we are already in such a situation. I hope that I can add some
context and clarify a few things.
@Daniel, please correct me if I misunderstood anything or my raised points
are not aligned with the respective Discussion and Vote threads.
Here goes my point of view regarding.
1. Why this is a technical vote:
1.1 The PR [2] is not moving forward due to the fact that CentOS stock Qemu
does not support the feature added;
1.2 it will impact on code being accepted in case of "+1" or blocked in
case the vote does not pass;
1.3 If this vote does pass, we need to change the PRs tests by adding
"qemu-kvm-ev" package in Marvin CentOS7 test environments.
2. Why I don't think this is a drop of support:
2.1 From what I understood, the proposal does not state that CloudStack
will officially drop support for CentOS7 "stock" packages;
2.2 those running CentOS7 WITHOUT "qemu-kvm-ev" packages already are not
able to perform some actions and they will never be with the current
"stock" packages;
2.3 there will be no "backward" compatibility issues for them, as they are
still not able to perform such operations.
2.4 those running CentOS7 WITHOUT "qemu-kvm-ev" will remain capable of
doing what their distro offers support.
3. Why this vote is relevant for MOST of the community
3.1 Those running Ubuntu or CentOS7 WITH "qemu-kvm-ev" will be able to have
critical and relevant features as users will be able to follow the
instructions on documentation and the PRs blocked will finally be able to
be merged;
3.2 documentation will be clear and help users to make their own decision
and take any risks into account.
I want to stress how relevant this is and that most (if not all) users with
CentOS7 would be willing to change their packages in order to have the new
features.
With that Said, I am +1 (binding).
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/z7s0774n72v4o9dnl140wvm030bxovjd
[2] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/5297
On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 9:34 AM Rohit Yadav
wrote:
As I explained in my email, my vote is conditional with the stated
assumption applicable only if this is a technical vote; Daniel advised in
his last email that this is a technical decision vote that I assume as
changes to source code and releases, therefore I had to vote my -1.
If this is still a non-technical vote (as defined in the bylaws [1], i.e.
decision/vote that does not affect changes in source code or releases) and
changes are "only limited to the docs" as proposed in the vote then I'm +1.
[1] https://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html
Regards.
From: Paul Angus
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 13:31
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries
The proposal said:
-
"- On CloudStack's Installation Guide > Host KVM Installation[²], we add a
section guiding users to install the qemu-kvm-ev binaries, if they are
using CentOS 7.
- The packages that we will guide users to install will be the latest
provided by the official CentOS site[³] (the current latest version is
'2.12.0-44.1.el7_8.1.x86_64')."
-
There's no mention of removing support for anything. If there is an
intention removing support for existing components as part of this, then I
agree completely with Rohit's -1 on it.
Kind Regards
Paul Angus
-Original Message-
From: Wei ZHOU
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 7:06 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries
oh wait, is there any word saying removing the support for centos7 with
stock qemu ?
-Wei
On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 at 07:38, Rohit Yadav
wrote:
I had assumed
Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 (RC2)
+1 On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 1:29 PM Wei ZHOU wrote: > +1 (binding) > > tested vm lifecycle on vmware70u3. > > -Wei > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 16:09, Suresh Anaparti < > suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I have created a 4.16.1.0 release (RC2), with the following artifacts up > > for testing and a vote: > > > > Git Branch and Commit SHA: > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/tree/4.16.1.0-RC20220225T1901 > > Commit: cad9332082a1f85eedc30cf547ae28224be170c2 > > > > Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same > > location): > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.16.1.0/ > > > > PGP release keys (signed using D6E0581ECF8A2FBE3FF6B3C9D7CEAE3A9E71D0AA): > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS > > > > The vote will be open until 2nd March 2022. > > > > 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) > > > > For users convenience, the packages from this release candidate (RC2) and > > 4.16.1 systemvm templates are available here: > > https://download.cloudstack.org/testing/4.16.1.0-RC2/ > > https://download.cloudstack.org/systemvm/4.16/ > > > > Documentation is not published yet, but the following may be referenced > > for upgrade related tests: > > (there's a new 4.16.1 systemvm template to be registered prior to > upgrade) > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/tree/4.16/source/upgrading/upgrade > > > > NOTES on the issues fixed in this RC2 release: > > > > (these do *NOT* require a full retest if you were testing RC1 already - > > just if you were affected by these issues): > > - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6017 (regression in > > register template form > > when select/unselect check boxes using space in keyboard) > > - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6026 (affects volumes on > > managed storages when > > stopping or migrating a VM) > > - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6038 (regression in SSVM > > scaling down behavior, > > new config 'secstorage.vm.auto.scale.down' added to control scaling down) > > > > > > Regards, > > Suresh > > > > > > > > > > > -- Daan
Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 (RC2)
+1 Adding my vote as well. Manually tested various VM, Volume and Network operations in Advanced Zone, on fresh and upgrade(from 4.15.2) environments (MS: CentOS 7 + Hypervisor: CentOS 7 KVM). Also, verified the automated smoke tests results in environments with MS on CentOS 7 and Hypervisors - CentOS 7 KVM, XenServer 7.1, and VMware 6.5u2. No issues noticed. Regards, Suresh On 02/03/22, 6:03 PM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote: +1 On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 1:29 PM Wei ZHOU wrote: > +1 (binding) > > tested vm lifecycle on vmware70u3. > > -Wei > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 16:09, Suresh Anaparti < > suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I have created a 4.16.1.0 release (RC2), with the following artifacts up > > for testing and a vote: > > > > Git Branch and Commit SHA: > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/tree/4.16.1.0-RC20220225T1901 > > Commit: cad9332082a1f85eedc30cf547ae28224be170c2 > > > > Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same > > location): > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.16.1.0/ > > > > PGP release keys (signed using D6E0581ECF8A2FBE3FF6B3C9D7CEAE3A9E71D0AA): > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS > > > > The vote will be open until 2nd March 2022. > > > > 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) > > > > For users convenience, the packages from this release candidate (RC2) and > > 4.16.1 systemvm templates are available here: > > https://download.cloudstack.org/testing/4.16.1.0-RC2/ > > https://download.cloudstack.org/systemvm/4.16/ > > > > Documentation is not published yet, but the following may be referenced > > for upgrade related tests: > > (there's a new 4.16.1 systemvm template to be registered prior to > upgrade) > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/tree/4.16/source/upgrading/upgrade > > > > NOTES on the issues fixed in this RC2 release: > > > > (these do *NOT* require a full retest if you were testing RC1 already - > > just if you were affected by these issues): > > - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6017 (regression in > > register template form > > when select/unselect check boxes using space in keyboard) > > - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6026 (affects volumes on > > managed storages when > > stopping or migrating a VM) > > - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6038 (regression in SSVM > > scaling down behavior, > > new config 'secstorage.vm.auto.scale.down' added to control scaling down) > > > > > > Regards, > > Suresh > > > > > > > > > > > -- Daan
Re: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries
Gabriel, Daniel, the pull request (code change) is new information for me
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/5297
There's also no rule or guidance that people can't discuss on a voting thread,
I find the terms used to refer to that "polluting" derogatory. The vote also
did not mention the PR and its implications, I'm sure most people on the thread
have voted only on doc changes. Thanks Gabriel to sharing the background, it
also explains what led Daniel to start the vote.
Daniel, on the logistics of voting you may want to read the project bylaws and
get familiar with the terms.
All, I'll need to find some time and then get back to this thread after
reviewing pros and cons of the PR and its implications after some due
diligence. Alternatively, I'm happy if some other PMC can do the due diligence,
I'll then add my vote based on PMC findings.
Regards.
From: Daniel Augusto Veronezi Salvador
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 6:00:51 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] CentOS 7 KVM binaries
@Gabriel has summarized everything very well.
This proposal only adds a requirement (makes it clear) in our
documentation for KVM + CentOS 7 (please, refer to the discussion
thread[¹] to understand why it is necessary), which is what everybody
(according to the discussion we had in the mailing list) is already
applying in production environments. Therefore, we would only make this
requirement clear to everybody, which would in turn enable us to move
forward with KVM improvements (such as my PR that improves the snapshot
process[²]). It (the discussion we had) never addressed dropping support
for CentOS 7.
Regarding Rohit's comment ("However, assuming Daniel has followed the
bylaws and is suggesting this as a technical change that removes support
in source code or releases..."), I never suggested a drop of support for
CentOS 7. I don't know how that conclusion was derived.
To emphasize, this proposal do not address dropping support for CentOS
7. Please, review the discussion thread[¹] and the proposal and
reconsider your votes.
Best regards,
Daniel Salvador
[¹] https://lists.apache.org/thread/z7s0774n72v4o9dnl140wvm030bxovjd
[²] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/5297
On 02/03/2022 06:47, Gabriel Bräscher wrote:
> I don`t want to "pollute" the vote thread, as we should keep discussions on
> the proper thread (Discussion here [1]).
> However, we are already in such a situation. I hope that I can add some
> context and clarify a few things.
>
> @Daniel, please correct me if I misunderstood anything or my raised points
> are not aligned with the respective Discussion and Vote threads.
> Here goes my point of view regarding.
> 1. Why this is a technical vote:
> 1.1 The PR [2] is not moving forward due to the fact that CentOS stock Qemu
> does not support the feature added;
> 1.2 it will impact on code being accepted in case of "+1" or blocked in
> case the vote does not pass;
> 1.3 If this vote does pass, we need to change the PRs tests by adding
> "qemu-kvm-ev" package in Marvin CentOS7 test environments.
>
> 2. Why I don't think this is a drop of support:
> 2.1 From what I understood, the proposal does not state that CloudStack
> will officially drop support for CentOS7 "stock" packages;
> 2.2 those running CentOS7 WITHOUT "qemu-kvm-ev" packages already are not
> able to perform some actions and they will never be with the current
> "stock" packages;
> 2.3 there will be no "backward" compatibility issues for them, as they are
> still not able to perform such operations.
> 2.4 those running CentOS7 WITHOUT "qemu-kvm-ev" will remain capable of
> doing what their distro offers support.
>
> 3. Why this vote is relevant for MOST of the community
> 3.1 Those running Ubuntu or CentOS7 WITH "qemu-kvm-ev" will be able to have
> critical and relevant features as users will be able to follow the
> instructions on documentation and the PRs blocked will finally be able to
> be merged;
> 3.2 documentation will be clear and help users to make their own decision
> and take any risks into account.
>
> I want to stress how relevant this is and that most (if not all) users with
> CentOS7 would be willing to change their packages in order to have the new
> features.
> With that Said, I am +1 (binding).
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/z7s0774n72v4o9dnl140wvm030bxovjd
> [2] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/5297
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 9:34 AM Rohit Yadav
> wrote:
>
>> As I explained in my email, my vote is conditional with the stated
>> assumption applicable only if this is a technical vote; Daniel advised in
>> his last email that this is a technical decision vote that I assume as
>> changes to source code and releases, therefore I had to vote my -1.
>>
>> If this is still a non-technical vote (as defined in the bylaws [1], i.e.
>> decision/vote that does not affect changes in source code or releases) and
>> changes are "only limited to the docs"
Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.16.1.0 (RC2)
+1 Tested on KVM (CentOS7) with NFS/Ceph/StorPool a few storage operations with a Basic Zone. Best regards, Slavka On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 4:02 PM Suresh Anaparti < suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > +1 > > Adding my vote as well. Manually tested various VM, Volume and Network > operations in Advanced Zone, on fresh and upgrade(from 4.15.2) environments > (MS: CentOS 7 + Hypervisor: CentOS 7 KVM). Also, verified the automated > smoke tests results in environments with MS on CentOS 7 and Hypervisors - > CentOS 7 KVM, XenServer 7.1, and VMware 6.5u2. No issues noticed. > > > Regards, > Suresh > > On 02/03/22, 6:03 PM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote: > > +1 > > > > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 1:29 PM Wei ZHOU wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > tested vm lifecycle on vmware70u3. > > > > -Wei > > > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 16:09, Suresh Anaparti < > > suresh.anapa...@shapeblue.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I have created a 4.16.1.0 release (RC2), with the following > artifacts up > > > for testing and a vote: > > > > > > Git Branch and Commit SHA: > > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/tree/4.16.1.0-RC20220225T1901 > > > Commit: cad9332082a1f85eedc30cf547ae28224be170c2 > > > > > > Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same > > > location): > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.16.1.0/ > > > > > > PGP release keys (signed using > D6E0581ECF8A2FBE3FF6B3C9D7CEAE3A9E71D0AA): > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS > > > > > > The vote will be open until 2nd March 2022. > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > For users convenience, the packages from this release candidate > (RC2) and > > > 4.16.1 systemvm templates are available here: > > > https://download.cloudstack.org/testing/4.16.1.0-RC2/ > > > https://download.cloudstack.org/systemvm/4.16/ > > > > > > Documentation is not published yet, but the following may be > referenced > > > for upgrade related tests: > > > (there's a new 4.16.1 systemvm template to be registered prior to > > upgrade) > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/tree/4.16/source/upgrading/upgrade > > > > > > NOTES on the issues fixed in this RC2 release: > > > > > > (these do *NOT* require a full retest if you were testing RC1 > already - > > > just if you were affected by these issues): > > > - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6017 (regression in > > > register template form > > > when select/unselect check boxes using space in keyboard) > > > - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6026 (affects > volumes on > > > managed storages when > > > stopping or migrating a VM) > > > - https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6038 (regression in > SSVM > > > scaling down behavior, > > > new config 'secstorage.vm.auto.scale.down' added to control > scaling down) > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Suresh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Daan > >
