Re: Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-2305: [Automation] NPE: not able to create volume from snapshot

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11296/#review20827 --- Commit 55c384651acf3778a4cce57543f79c6e5838fef4 in branch refs/heads

Re: Review Request: remove bogus self assign to parent

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11247/#review20826 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Nitin Mehta On May 20, 2013, 7:50 p.m., Dave

Re: Review Request: when comparing scopes, compare scope ids by value, not reference.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11246/#review20825 --- Ship it! 49faa002e220311f10a5f3fad66a22836dad - Prasanna Santh

Re: Review Request: when comparing scopes, compare scope ids by value, not reference.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11246/#review20824 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Nitin Mehta On May 20, 2013, 7:49 p.m., Dave

Re: Review Request: Nop assignment due to missing 'this.'

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11245/#review20823 --- Ship it! 45d2e60656a7c9b2b4171bc63450afa229ca4e75 Consider using g

Re: Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-2305: [Automation] NPE: not able to create volume from snapshot

> On May 21, 2013, 5:45 a.m., Nitin Mehta wrote: > > server/src/com/cloud/storage/VolumeManagerImpl.java, line 920 > > > > > > Can you please put the check above the if (cmd.getSnapshotId() == null) > > else block

Re: Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-2305: [Automation] NPE: not able to create volume from snapshot

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11296/#review20822 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Nitin Mehta On May 21, 2013, 5:24 a.m., Sanj

Re: Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-2305: [Automation] NPE: not able to create volume from snapshot

> On May 21, 2013, 5:45 a.m., Nitin Mehta wrote: > > server/src/com/cloud/storage/VolumeManagerImpl.java, line 920 > > > > > > Can you please put the check above the if (cmd.getSnapshotId() == null) > > else block

Re: Review Request: Fixed [Automation] SSVM test "/usr/local/cloud/systemvm/ssvm-check.sh" failed with permission error

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11178/#review20819 --- Old acton template: root@s-218-VM:~# ps aux | grep rpc statd 106

Re: Review Request: Fixed [Automation] SSVM test "/usr/local/cloud/systemvm/ssvm-check.sh" failed with permission error

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 05:51:55AM +, Rajesh Battala wrote: > Please review the patch, > Fix is filtering out rpc_piepfs from the grep output to verify the mount > point validation. > This looks okay. But do we know why rpc_pipefs is mounted in new systemVM? RPC bind is not running by defa

RE: Review Request: Fixed [Automation] SSVM test "/usr/local/cloud/systemvm/ssvm-check.sh" failed with permission error

Please review the patch, Fix is filtering out rpc_piepfs from the grep output to verify the mount point validation. Thanks Rajesh > -Original Message- > From: Rajesh Battala [mailto:nore...@reviews.apache.org] On Behalf Of > Rajesh Battala > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:16 AM > To: A

Re: Review Request: Fixed [Automation] SSVM test "/usr/local/cloud/systemvm/ssvm-check.sh" failed with permission error

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11178/ --- (Updated May 21, 2013, 5:45 a.m.) Review request for cloudstack, edison su, Chi

Re: Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-2305: [Automation] NPE: not able to create volume from snapshot

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11296/#review20818 --- server/src/com/cloud/storage/VolumeManagerImpl.java

Re: [DISCUSS] Should we pause merges into master until 4.1 is out the door?

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 04:34:58PM -0400, Chip Childers wrote: > All, > > I can't help but notice that we continue to have features being developed and > proposed / merged into master while I struggle to get opinions / help on > 4.1. I doubt that we (as a community) want to abandon 4.1, but I can

RE: 4-2-advanced-zone-security-group

Presumably the button is currently just a place holder then as it actually sends a listzones API call? http://10.0.0.11:8080/client/api?command=listZones&response=json&sessionkey=Sh7AB%2FpSYASsNVLeZflAG4WeFwQ%3D&_=1369031332187 which is returned: { "listzonesresponse" : { "count":1 ,"zon

Re: CLOUDSTACK-2554: Yet another blocker?

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:23:10AM +, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: > Also, why would the 4.2 system vm template block 4.1 ? It doesn't. I encountered the issue on master and the bug reporter encountered it on 4.1. I fixed both. Except master had additional fixes that are related to functionality ta

Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-2305: [Automation] NPE: not able to create volume from snapshot

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11296/ --- Review request for cloudstack, Devdeep Singh and Nitin Mehta. Description -

Re: Review Request: Fixed SRX icmp firewall rule configuration issue

> On May 20, 2013, 7 p.m., Sheng Yang wrote: > > plugins/network-elements/juniper-srx/src/com/cloud/network/resource/JuniperSrxResource.java, > > line 845 > > > > > > Why ICMP's getSrcPortRange is null(then need the m

Re: Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-681: Dedicated Resources - Explicit Dedication, Private zone, pod, cluster or host

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 06:37:12PM -, Prachi Damle wrote: > > It will be good to add an integration test using marvin on these lines: > - dedicate a host to a test account > - create the explicit dedication affinity group for the test account > - deploy Vm using explicit dedication affinity gr

RE: [DISCUSS] Should we pause merges into master until 4.1 is out the door?

> -Original Message- > From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com] > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 5:35 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should we pause merges into master until 4.1 is out > the door? > > I don't see limited interest. It seems that

Re: [DISCUSS] Should we pause merges into master until 4.1 is out the door?

I don't see limited interest. It seems that bugs are trickling in every day and they are being taken up as they come in. Is there any blocker without any action for more than a few days? The only one I can see CLOUDSTACK-2463. That one is baffling to me and several others -- because the configurati

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

No, they couldn't have set that since this flag is not available on Debian 2.6.32 On 5/20/13 5:26 PM, "John Burwell" wrote: >Chip, > >Previous releases of CloudStack may have set >/proc/sys/xen/independent_wallclock in the cloud-early-config script >which will properly sync clock for paravirtual

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

Chip, Previous releases of CloudStack may have set /proc/sys/xen/independent_wallclock in the cloud-early-config script which will properly sync clock for paravirtualized VMs. However, NTP is only solution that correct clock drift for both para and full virtualized VMs. Admittedly, I haven't

Re: About testing of OVS Tunnel Manager, Fail on create new instance

You can use the updatePhysicalNetwork API with cloud monkey. Alternatively, set up your zone wizard with GRE isolation BEFORE setting the global config and THEN set the global config? At least, that works for me on master. On 5/19/13 1:40 AM, "錦為" wrote: >But, It does not have step to specify th

Re: [DISCUSS] Should we pause merges into master until 4.1 is out the door?

On May 20, 2013, at 7:50 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:35 PM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Subject: [DISCUSS] Should we pause merges into master until 4.1 is out the >

Re: CLOUDSTACK-2554: Yet another blocker?

Also, why would the 4.2 system vm template block 4.1 ? On 5/20/13 12:40 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote: >On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 06:38:01PM +0530, Prasanna Santhanam wrote: >> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 06:28:38PM +, Koushik Das wrote: >> > The problem is that there is no default ctor in >> > XcpSer

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

On May 20, 2013, at 7:14 PM, John Burwell wrote: > All, > > While it is tough to do, I must cast a -1 for the following reasons: > > Given that system VMs write files, this defect makes every file > created/modified timestamp unreliable. > Operational log correlation/debugging is nearly impossib

RE: [DISCUSS] Should we pause merges into master until 4.1 is out the door?

> -Original Message- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:35 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: [DISCUSS] Should we pause merges into master until 4.1 is out the > door? > > All, > > I can't help but notice that we continue t

Re: Review Request: (CLOUDSTACK-1638) Network plugins won't be notified VM migration.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/9871/#review20799 --- Ship it! Shipped. PVLAN migration support shipped with it. - Sheng

Re: Review Request: (CLOUDSTACK-1638) Network plugins won't be notified VM migration.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/9871/#review20797 --- Commit 7260e8d83f07d90b48c34adaeb227de265019487 in branch refs/heads/

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

All, While it is tough to do, I must cast a -1 for the following reasons: Given that system VMs write files, this defect makes every file created/modified timestamp unreliable. Operational log correlation/debugging is nearly impossible since the clock is out of sync. It renders S3-backed Second

RE: [ACS41] Outstanding Blockers - Please Read!

I am looking into CLOUDSTACK-2568 Thanks, Prachi -Original Message- From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:04 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: [ACS41] Outstanding Blockers - Please Read! Here's where we are. Help resolving or actual

Re: Review Request: (CLOUDSTACK-1638) Network plugins won't be notified VM migration.

OK, I would just go ahead and merge it. --Sheng On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Hiroaki KAWAI wrote: > +1 > > I'm sorry that I could not make time to respond. > I'll catch up after the merge. > > > (2013/05/17 3:57), Chip Childers wrote: > >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 06:55:30PM +, Chiradeep

RE: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

> -Original Message- > From: Edison Su [mailto:edison...@citrix.com] > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:30 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: RE: [MERGE]object_store branch into master > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] > > Se

Review Request: object storage refactor

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11277/ --- Review request for cloudstack. Description --- The diff generated by: git

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

in light of this and not understanding the benefit of having sec groups + advanced zone features.. are the security group ACL's even honored in this setup? I'm more inclined to see Decision 3 implemented. Is there a VOTE for this coming up? On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Chiradeep Vittal < chir

RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

> -Original Message- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:36 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2 > > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:50PM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

May I humbly suggest that the configuration (SG + Advanced + VMWare) was never supported and the end user got themselves into an unfortunate situation by using an unsupported configuration (even if the software let them do it). I have perused both 2.2.13 and 2.2.14 install guides and it is quite cl

RE: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

> -Original Message- > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:56 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master > > All, > > Since this change is so large, it makes reviewing and commenting in detail > ext

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

I'm +0 on this, dont want to hold up a release with a neg 1 vote. My opinion is that time sync is critical piece for system vm's. Having the wrong time can lead to system vm's booting and waiting for manual intervention via consistency checks (potential blocker bug IMO). On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

+1 On 5/20/13 1:15 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote: >All, > >As discussed on another thread [1], we identified a bug >(CLOUDSTACK-2492) in the current 3.x system VMs, where the System VMs >are not configured to sync their time with either the host HV or an NTP >service. That bug affects the system VM

[DISCUSS] Should we pause merges into master until 4.1 is out the door?

All, I can't help but notice that we continue to have features being developed and proposed / merged into master while I struggle to get opinions / help on 4.1. I doubt that we (as a community) want to abandon 4.1, but I can't be certain. Should we abandon an attempt at releasing 4.1, and instea

[VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

All, As discussed on another thread [1], we identified a bug (CLOUDSTACK-2492) in the current 3.x system VMs, where the System VMs are not configured to sync their time with either the host HV or an NTP service. That bug affects the system VMs for all three primary HVs (KVM, Xen and vSphere). P

Re: [ACS41] System VMs not syncing time - does this block the release?

We appear to be at an impasse here as well. I'm going to start a VOTE on this issue, given that we have no easy answer. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:49:41PM -0700, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: > Well, I disagree, from the perspective of hundreds of production clouds. > No harm has been perceived in tho

[ACS41] Outstanding Blockers - Please Read!

Here's where we are. Help resolving or actually reaching consensus on the path forward would be appreciated: CLOUDSTACK-2215 ACS41 SSVM does not use allocated storage ip range Currently unassigned. CLOUDSTACK-2463 CS Upgrade 2.2.14 to 4.1.0 failed due to no public network found (configuration :

Re: [ACS41] System VMs not syncing time - does this block the release?

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 01:11:53PM -0700, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: >> For VMWare, the command >> vmware-toolbox-cmd timesync status returns 'Disabled'. I can submit a >> patch for /etc/init.d/cloud-early-config to enable it > > Please do! > >

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

My preference leans towards option 2. Dont release until we have a valid path for the 2.x cast aways to return back to a more modern version. Do we know the LOE required to bring the advanced security groups back for KVM/Xen? On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On Mon, May 2

Re: [ACS41] System VMs not syncing time - does this block the release?

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 01:11:53PM -0700, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: > For VMWare, the command > vmware-toolbox-cmd timesync status returns 'Disabled'. I can submit a > patch for /etc/init.d/cloud-early-config to enable it Please do! -chip

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

All, Since this change is so large, it makes reviewing and commenting in detail extremely difficult. Would it be possible to push this patch through Review Board to ease comprehension and promote a conversation about this patch? Reading through the FS, I have the following questions regarding

Review Request: remove bogus self assign to parent

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11247/ --- Review request for cloudstack. Description --- code assigns this.parent

Review Request: when comparing scopes, compare scope ids by value, not reference.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11246/ --- Review request for cloudstack. Description --- code compares Long values w

Re: Review Request: Nop assignment due to missing 'this.'

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11245/ --- (Updated May 20, 2013, 7:47 p.m.) Review request for cloudstack. Description

Review Request: Nop assignment due to missing 'this.'

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11245/ --- Review request for cloudstack. Description --- simple missed 'this.' cause

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:43:01PM -0400, John Burwell wrote: > Chip, > > In addition to this issue, we still do not have a resolution for the system > VM clock drift on Xen (CLOUDSTACK-2492 [1]). > > Thanks, > -John > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2492 Yes, but diffe

Re: Modifying the DB schema

Thanks for the links, Chip. Yeah...I need to become more familiar with our workflow. I plan to polish off what I've been working on in the next day or two. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 01:14:08PM -0600, Mike Tutkowski wrote: > > Hi Chip, > > >

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

Chip, In addition to this issue, we still do not have a resolution for the system VM clock drift on Xen (CLOUDSTACK-2492 [1]). Thanks, -John [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2492 On May 20, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:50PM -0400

Re: CLOUDSTACK-2554: Yet another blocker?

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 06:38:01PM +0530, Prasanna Santhanam wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 06:28:38PM +, Koushik Das wrote: > > The problem is that there is no default ctor in > > XcpServerResource.java. Now the default ctor was changed to a > > non-default one by this commit. Adding a defau

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:50PM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: > > On May 17, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi > wrote: > > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM > >> To: dev@cloudstack.a

Re: Modifying the DB schema

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 01:14:08PM -0600, Mike Tutkowski wrote: > Hi Chip, > > Yes, the intent is to provide the code for release in 4.2. Not just the > plug-in, but also the improvements to the storage framework (which should > benefit any company wanting to implement dynamic, zone-wide storage).

Re: Modifying the DB schema

Hi Chip, Yes, the intent is to provide the code for release in 4.2. Not just the plug-in, but also the improvements to the storage framework (which should benefit any company wanting to implement dynamic, zone-wide storage). On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On Mon, May 20

Re: Modifying the DB schema

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 01:09:21PM -0600, Mike Tutkowski wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Thanks for that info! > > When I started with my development work, it was mainly focused on > implementing a storage plug-in to be based on Edison's new storage > framework. > > Definitely let me know, but I was t

Re: Modifying the DB schema

Hi everyone, Thanks for that info! When I started with my development work, it was mainly focused on implementing a storage plug-in to be based on Edison's new storage framework. Definitely let me know, but I was thinking such a plug-in wasn't something the list would be as interested in partici

Re: Modifying the DB schema

On 05/20/2013 08:58 PM, Mike Tutkowski wrote: Just throwing this out there, but maybe in the schema-410to420.sql file? Yes, that's where it should go. If this hits 4.2 I mean. I'm not sure what our upgrade paths are, though, so maybe this file needs to get changed and others? The code wi

Re: Modifying the DB schema

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:58:46PM -0600, Mike Tutkowski wrote: > Just throwing this out there, but maybe in the schema-410to420.sql file? If you are planning on being feature complete by the feature freeze window, then that's the one! > > I'm not sure what our upgrade paths are, though, so mayb

Re: Modifying the DB schema

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:55:27PM -0600, Mike Tutkowski wrote: > Hi, > > I've been writing code to enable users to select min, max, and burst IOPS > for Disk Offerings. > > I've gotten to the point where I need to create these new fields in the DB, > but I'm not sure where we control this logic.

Re: Review Request: Fixed SRX icmp firewall rule configuration issue

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11224/#review20784 --- plugins/network-elements/juniper-srx/src/com/cloud/network/resource

Re: Modifying the DB schema

Just throwing this out there, but maybe in the schema-410to420.sql file? I'm not sure what our upgrade paths are, though, so maybe this file needs to get changed and others? On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Mike Tutkowski < mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I've been writing code

Modifying the DB schema

Hi, I've been writing code to enable users to select min, max, and burst IOPS for Disk Offerings. I've gotten to the point where I need to create these new fields in the DB, but I'm not sure where we control this logic. My new code would look something like this: alter table disk_offering add co

Re: Review Request: [ACS41][PATCH] CLOUDSTACK-2554: XCP 1.6 fails to load

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11238/#review20783 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Chip Childers On May 20, 2013, 1:46 p.m., Pr

Re: Review Request: [ACS41][PATCH] CLOUDSTACK-2554: XCP 1.6 fails to load

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11238/#review20782 --- Commit 8ea1601bd3a9ad04f6f0a6c03be540303d05fef8 in branch refs/heads

Re: Review Request: [ACS41][PATCH] CLOUDSTACK-2554: XCP 1.6 fails to load

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11238/#review20780 --- Commit 806aeb990d28179ff532e97dbf64f87cd3d5ca34 in branch refs/heads

Re: Review Request: [ACS41][PATCH] CLOUDSTACK-2554: XCP 1.6 fails to load

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11238/#review20779 --- Commit 7ea2c950f5c1c2446ae94087d7f78812cc94a658 in branch refs/heads

Re: Review Request: [ACS41][PATCH] CLOUDSTACK-2554: XCP 1.6 fails to load

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11238/#review20778 --- Commit 85d54cd1c088997dd08f0328984bee1a55703636 in branch refs/heads

RE: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

> -Original Message- > From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 11:36 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master > > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti > wrote: > > Also open defects need to be ad

Re: Review Request: Add package declaration to MidoNetElementTest

You know, I probably should have mentioned where I was seeing the warning. :) It was in Eclipse. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Chip Childers wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.

Re: Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-681: Dedicated Resources - Explicit Dedication, Private zone, pod, cluster or host

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10797/#review20777 --- It will be good to add an integration test using marvin on these lin

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti wrote: > Also open defects need to be addressed as testing has been done on feature > branch and the numbers seem to be high on this branch - atleast blocker and > critical should be addressed. > > Key Summary AssigneeReporter

Re: Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-681: Dedicated Resources - Explicit Dedication, Private zone, pod, cluster or host

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10797/#review20776 --- Also, the patch is failing on latest master, please can you create a

Re: Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-681: Dedicated Resources - Explicit Dedication, Private zone, pod, cluster or host

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10797/#review20775 --- One more change we should make to all APIs: - I see that most of the

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 06:22:03PM +, Sudha Ponnaganti wrote: > Also open defects need to be addressed as testing has been done on feature > branch and the numbers seem to be high on this branch - atleast blocker and > critical should be addressed. > > Key Summary AssigneeReporter

RE: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

Also open defects need to be addressed as testing has been done on feature branch and the numbers seem to be high on this branch - atleast blocker and critical should be addressed. Key Summary AssigneeReporterPriorityStatus CLOUDSTACK-2586 [Object_Store_Refactor] Ext

RE: 4-2-advanced-zone-security-group

Thanks for reporting this, It didn't work in normal advanced zone or advanced zone with security group. In advanced zone with security group, only one shared network security group network is supported, which is created when you create the zone, you may not be able to create another guest netwo

RE: MidoNetElementTest Issue

Thanks Chip ! -Original Message- From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 11:29 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: MidoNetElementTest Issue On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 08:29:49AM +, Pranav Saxena wrote: > Thanks Dave . I'll apply the ch

Re: [DISCUSS] EIP Enhancements FS & Design Document

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 02:19:24PM +, Murali Reddy wrote: > > Swamy, > > As mentioned in my merge request [1], I have generalised this feature and > tried to not enforce AWS EIP semantics. Please see the updated FS [2] > > [1] http://s.apache.org/xjy > [2] > https://cwiki.apache.org/conflue

Re: MidoNetElementTest Issue

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 08:29:49AM +, Pranav Saxena wrote: > Thanks Dave . I'll apply the change after running mvn clean install test > again . Applied. > > Regards, > Pranav > > -Original Message- > From: dcah...@midokura.jp [mailto:dcah...@midokura.jp] On Behalf Of Dave > Cahil

Re: Review Request: Add package declaration to MidoNetElementTest

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11232/#review20773 --- Ship it! committed to master - Chip Childers On May 20, 2013, 8:

Re: [ACS41][REQUEST] 5646f5e9772380cc91a8ccb9894c8ed05ffc891f

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 10:53:59AM +0200, Wido den Hollander wrote: > On 05/17/2013 06:00 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > >Bug ID? > > Sorry, I actually forgot to create one! > > Here you go: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2566 > > I'd like to request 239bb13dde0d32ca3e05a8ea2b35a88

Re: Properties file question

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 02:24:52PM -0600, Mike Tutkowski wrote: > Looks like the correct properties file to modify is here: > > client/WEB-INF/classes/resources/messages.properties Thanks for circling back to the list with the answer to this Mike (and other times you have done it). > > > On Th

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 08:19:57AM -0400, David Nalley wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Edison Su wrote: > > Hi all, > > Min and I worked on object_store branch during the last one and half > > month. We made a lot of refactor on the storage code, mostly related to > > secondary st

Re: How to seperate the user portal and admin portal？

this sounds like you either want to customize the UI (maybe as simple as check to see if an admin is trying to log in from the 'user portal' and reject it at login) or create your own custom UI... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On Sun, May 19, 2013, at 08:50 PM, sx che

Re: 3.0.x->4.1 DB upgrade: missing table for Netscaler

On 5/20/13 6:53 AM, "Murali Reddy" wrote: >On 20/05/13 7:08 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote: > >>On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 08:30:26PM +, Alena Prokharchyk wrote: >>> Hi Murali, >>> >>> I found that the table "netscaler_pod_ref" (introduced with your >>>checkin >>> 3b1aca19) is missing on the upgrad

Re: stackmate ToDo

Hi Dharmesh, You got the code structure right. Are you available on IRC (#cloudstack-dev) so we could discuss more? I am in the process of putting a web interface on stackmate. I am in PDT time zone. On 5/20/13 6:36 AM, "Chip Childers" wrote: >Dharmesh, > >Adding Chiradeep to this thread, since

RE: [PROPOSAL] [CLOUDSTACK-2328] Linux native VXLAN support on KVM hypervisor

Thanks David! I've assigned the task to myself. Sincerely, -- Toshiaki > -Original Message- > From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:58 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] [CLOUDSTACK-2328] Linux native VXLAN support on > KVM hyp

Re: Review Request: debian: fix build of cloudstack-awsapi package

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11180/#review20771 --- Applied to 4.1. However, master seems to be out of sync with 4.1 ri

Re: Review Request: CLOUDSTACK-2543: createipAlias.sh/deleteipAlias.sh won't be copied to XenServer host

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11221/#review20767 --- Commit aa60105a84e1260ec9687759a069a0c9cf0c46bf in branch refs/heads

Re: Review Request: debian: fix build of cloudstack-awsapi package

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11180/ --- (Updated May 20, 2013, 3:42 p.m.) Review request for cloudstack, Prachi Damle a

Re: 3.0.x->4.1 DB upgrade: missing table for Netscaler

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 01:53:00PM +, Murali Reddy wrote: > On 20/05/13 7:08 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote: > > >On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 08:30:26PM +, Alena Prokharchyk wrote: > >> Hi Murali, > >> > >> I found that the table "netscaler_pod_ref" (introduced with your checkin > >> 3b1aca19) is

Re: How to seperate the user portal and admin portal？

On Sun, May 19, 2013, at 08:50 PM, 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 > p

Re: Review Request: (CLOUDSTACK-1475) update keystore in SSVM and change download iso/template url after Update SSL Certificate

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 06:24:21AM +, Wei Zhou wrote: > > > > On May 17, 2013, 5:18 a.m., Nitin Mehta wrote: > > > Ship It! > > > > Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > Nitin can you commit the patch > > > > Nitin Mehta wrote: > > Some files seem to be removed or atleast the location has c

Re: Review Request: debian: fix build of cloudstack-awsapi package

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11180/ --- (Updated May 20, 2013, 3:42 p.m.) Review request for cloudstack, Chip Childers,

  1   2   >