Re: Review Request: Fixed adding route for mgmt subnet in vmware

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11201/#review20887 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Abhinandan Prateek On May 16, 2013, 1:37 p.m

Re: Review Request: Fixed adding route for mgmt subnet in vmware

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11201/#review20886 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Abhinandan Prateek On May 16, 2013, 1:37 p.m

Re: Review Request: Cloudstack-2548 [Automation] Failed to delete public IP range

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11297/#review20883 --- core/src/com/cloud/network/DnsMasqConfigurator.java

Review Request: set rpcProvider field correctly in constructor

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11325/ --- Review request for cloudstack. Description --- code does rpcProvider = rp

Re: Review Request: Cloudstack-2548 [Automation] Failed to delete public IP range

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11297/ --- (Updated May 22, 2013, 6:25 a.m.) Review request for cloudstack, Abhinandan Pra

Re: Review Request: Cloudstack-2548 [Automation] Failed to delete public IP range

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11297/ --- (Updated May 22, 2013, 6:19 a.m.) Review request for cloudstack, Abhinandan Pra

Review Request: remove dead allocations

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11324/ --- Review request for cloudstack. Description --- code allocates a collection

RE: [ACS41] Outstanding Blockers - Please Read!

Chip, CLOUDSTACK-2516- I've added my comments for documentation. > -Original Message- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 1:30 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Cc: Kishan Kavala; imusa...@webmd.net > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Outstanding

Re: localization tables in CS database

This is the file I'm aware of: client/WEB-INF/classes/resources/messages.properties I can't say I understand completely how L10N works in CS, but this properties file might be a good place for you to start. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Adnan Ashraf < mohammad.adnan.ash...@gmail.com> wrote:

Re: localization tables in CS database

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Adnan Ashraf wrote: > Hi, > > I would appreciate if anyone could point me to understand how cloudstack > schema model accommodates the localization strings within its database > tables. I am interested in understanding whether a central strings table is > used or

Re: localization tables in CS database

For example, I notice we seem to hard code English strings in the text of exceptions we throw. I've never tried to view these exceptions while running under a language other than English, but I somewhat doubt they are translated. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Mike Tutkowski < mike.tutkow...@

localization tables in CS database

Hi, I would appreciate if anyone could point me to understand how cloudstack schema model accommodates the localization strings within its database tables. I am interested in understanding whether a central strings table is used or multiple tables are used for this purpose and how it grows over ti

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

And just for my own clarification, the only S3 functionality it jeopardizes for 4.1 is the cross-zone template sync, correct? Not any S3 based primary or secondary storage, right? On May 21, 2013 8:39 PM, "Outback Dingo" wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Chiradeep Vittal < > chiradeep.vi

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

I understand the sentiment, but as far as new features are concerned, there is some precedent for new features being "Xen only" or "KVM only" for a release. That said, I've got about four 4.1 environments running, and have been using April and May builds of the 4.2 template on all of them, and have

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

John, I would not say as far as that but it does require some baking time and of course resources. Below are the basic tests that can certify template functionality however as mentioned earlier regression need to be done as templates impact broader feature set. Below tests are done to tes

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

Sudha, Forgive my ignorance, but would the RVR changes be necessary for 4.1? If not, would it be possible to baseline them in their current state and test for 4.1? Would additional resources from the community help shorten the regression test (i.e. is this a nine women make a baby in one month sc

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

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Chiradeep Vittal < chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > Outback, it would be helpful to understand the harm you are facing without > this fix. > Are you operating a CloudStack cloud already? Have you lost Vms/ lost data > / faced unexplained crashes, or found you

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

Chirpadeep, Have clusters previous versions actually been checked for this issue or are we stating that based on code review? I can say that in testing done earlier this year that the SSVM was syncing with the host on devcloud because I would hit situations where I would hit S3 clock sync issues.

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

John, Usually testing of templates require regression testing which usually take ~2 week ( need to run core regression on them ). It is usually preferred to test templates early on in release given the risk and also it would get enough coverage by all the testing that happens during release cyc

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

Outback, it would be helpful to understand the harm you are facing without this fix. Are you operating a CloudStack cloud already? Have you lost Vms/ lost data / faced unexplained crashes, or found your cloud unavailable due to this? Note that this bug has been there since 2.2 On 5/21/13 5:59 PM,

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

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:15 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 th

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

I completely agree but when does features an enhancements come before QA an overall stability of a product? I guess it all depends on customers base. Sean On May 21, 2013, at 7:28 PM, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: > There's ALWAYS known issues in every release. The release manager, > developers, s

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

All, Can someone please answer the following questions: 1. Besides testing, what work needs to be done back port the 4.2 system VMs to 4.1 (e.g. docs, posting images for download, etc)? 2. What is involved to test/verify the operation of 4.2 system VMs on 4.1? What is labor/time estimate?

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

There's ALWAYS known issues in every release. The release manager, developers, support (in this case developers), product managers (in this case community at large) and customers (users) at some point put the value of getting new code and new features ahead of fixing ALL known issues. I suggest th

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

I'm not arguing the value of blockers. Sure they are valuable. But our estimate of the harm (IMO) is totally out of proportion. Take the time sync issue. This has been there since 2.2.0. Are we saying that the thousands of production Cloudstack clouds are well and truly borked and cannot function?

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

All, I would prefer a better release an wait for it then to have to deal with multiple updates because of issues, just my $.02.. Sean On May 21, 2013, at 7:00 PM, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: > But the longer we hold the window open for folks to raise defects, the > longer it will take to release

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

Chiradeep, This defect affects 100% of users that use system VMs which I believe is all of them. It also appears that we have a fix for this problem that needs to be pulled back from 4.2 and tested. What is involved with testing it? Personally, I would be please if we found more blockers before

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

Chiradeep, It seems that we have a solution to both clock drift and IPv6 for system VMs. As such, it sounds we have a compelling reason to pull this work back 4.1. What QA is required? How long will it take? What can we do as a community to help? Thanks, -John On May 21, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Ch

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

But the longer we hold the window open for folks to raise defects, the longer it will take to release. Why can't we enforce our own timelines and say "this is it". Any release will have blockers for a subset of users. It seems to me that we are inefficient in estimating the harm from a 'blocker' de

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

They are compatible, but face the same problem - lack of QA. On 5/21/13 4:26 PM, "Marcus Sorensen" wrote: >I'm not sure how well tested they are, but they're already more or less >compatible. The idea was floated to provide ipv6 preview with instructions >to use the 4.2 template. >On May 21, 201

RE: [ACS41] Outstanding Blockers - Please Read!

Chip, I just resolved the ticket, please cherry-pick following commit's from master to 4.1 branch. 1) ee0a91d111349b981d5f97fa69c97c34d9f15268 2) dce42581710ce3613f4bf765d713fab9552747ca Thanks, Prachi -Original Message- From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] Sent: Tues

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

I'm not sure how well tested they are, but they're already more or less compatible. The idea was floated to provide ipv6 preview with instructions to use the 4.2 template. On May 21, 2013 5:09 PM, "John Burwell" wrote: > Chiradeep, > > Is it possible to "back port" the 4.2 system VMs to 4.1? Wha

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

Chiradeep, Is it possible to "back port" the 4.2 system VMs to 4.1? What would be involved in such an effort? Thanks, -John On May 21, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: > The latest 4.2 systemvms do have ntp built in. The earlier comment about > HVM is incorrect. It is PV (PVOPS, to

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

The latest 4.2 systemvms do have ntp built in. The earlier comment about HVM is incorrect. It is PV (PVOPS, to be exact). With PVOPS Linux vms, there is no sync between domU and dom0. On 5/21/13 2:45 PM, "Marcus Sorensen" wrote: >+1, it seems that it is no worse off then it ever has been, aside

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

+1, it seems that it is no worse off then it ever has been, aside from the caveat that newer features are beginning to rely on it. I do agree though that it could perhaps be rolled into the newer system vm, as an option for people to use at their own risk. Of course, if someone wants to patch it u

40-41 upgrade

Hi Murali/Frank, The following global configs introduced by both of you, are missing in the upgraded 4.1 setup. They are present on freshly installed 4.1 and used by the corresponding features' code. Murali: "eip.use.multiple.netscalers" Frank: "external,baremetal.resource.classname" "

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

David, I am willing to do the work. However, as I understand the circumstances, a complete build process for the system VMs has not been released. If I am incorrect in my understanding, I will do the work necessary to fix the problem. Thanks, -John On May 21, 2013, at 5:29 PM, David Nalley

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

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:15 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 th

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

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:34:45AM +, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: >> 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 mo

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

I am not sure if I am allowed to vote here but... I guess the SSVM has been built using HVM instead of PV? If the SSVM is PV, it should sync domU -> dom0. It might also require some hotfixes on the XenServer side if you are using XS 6.0.2 (hotfix 18) that addresses some clock drift issues. Be

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/#review20857 --- I am fine with "Ship it". - Sheng Yang On May 20, 2013, 5:55 a.m.

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 854 > > > > > > I think it's wrong here. Firewall is only firewall

Re: 40-41 upgrade

Please send in a patch for this! Good catch Alena. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Alena Prokharchyk wrote: > Hi Vijay, > > I came across the commit c25d60f1 for 40-41 DB upgrade path: > > +UPDATE `cloud`.`configuration` SET value='KVM,XenServer,VMware,Ovm' WHERE > name='hypervisor.list'; > > W

40-41 upgrade

Hi Vijay, I came across the commit c25d60f1 for 40-41 DB upgrade path: +UPDATE `cloud`.`configuration` SET value='KVM,XenServer,VMware,Ovm' WHERE name='hypervisor.list'; We should never reset global configuration value, as existing customers might already re-set it. This parameter means "The lis

RE: Using rados-java as a new Maven dependency for KVM

Just curious: Do you plan or already implement librbd api call with progress callback? The storage operation usually takes a long time, without progress bar, it's very difficult to know what's going on at the storage side. > -Original Message- > From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:w...@wid

Re: [ACS402][URGENT] RBD/Ceph integration broken

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 04:15:20PM +0200, Wido den Hollander wrote: > I didn't know we weren't going to release 4.0.3. We've discussed the support lifetime on and off for awhile now. Consensus seemed to be that we would support each minor version release (the feature releases like 4.1 and 4.2) unt

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

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 04:15:14PM -0400, 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 a

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

Adding Nicolas to the CC line to be sure that he sees Animesh's offer. Animesh - Nicolas is in the EU, so I'd expect a reply tomorrow? On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 01:01:59PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: nicolas.lamira...@orange.com [mailto:nicolas.la

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

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:34:45AM +, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: > 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we need a 4.0.3?

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:21:14AM -0400, Chip Childers wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:19:05AM -0500, 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 >

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

> -Original Message- > From: nicolas.lamira...@orange.com [mailto:nicolas.lamira...@orange.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2 > > Hi > We didn't so much choose the Security

Re: [ACS41] Outstanding Blockers - Please Read!

CC's for specific people that I have questions for below: On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 04:04:12PM -0400, Chip Childers wrote: > 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 storag

Re: Using rados-java as a new Maven dependency for KVM

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0200, Wido den Hollander wrote: >> >> >> On 05/21/2013 09:16 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote: >> >Hi, >> > >> >In the rbd-snap-clone [0] branch I'm working on the new RBD features >> >like snapshotting, clonin

Re: [ACS41] Outstanding Blockers - Please Read!

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:51:29PM +, Prachi Damle wrote: > I am looking into CLOUDSTACK-2568 Thank you Prachi!

Re: Using rados-java as a new Maven dependency for KVM

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0200, Wido den Hollander wrote: > > > On 05/21/2013 09:16 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote: > >Hi, > > > >In the rbd-snap-clone [0] branch I'm working on the new RBD features > >like snapshotting, cloning and deploying System VMs on RBD. > > > >To do this correctly

Re: Using rados-java as a new Maven dependency for KVM

On 05/21/2013 09:16 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote: Hi, In the rbd-snap-clone [0] branch I'm working on the new RBD features like snapshotting, cloning and deploying System VMs on RBD. To do this correctly I wrote Java bindings for librbd and librados (part of the Ceph project). These bindings

Using rados-java as a new Maven dependency for KVM

Hi, In the rbd-snap-clone [0] branch I'm working on the new RBD features like snapshotting, cloning and deploying System VMs on RBD. To do this correctly I wrote Java bindings for librbd and librados (part of the Ceph project). These bindings [1] are just like libvirt-java just JNA bindings

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/#review20854 --- Wido helped sync master and 4.1. - Chip Childers On May 20, 2013,

Re: About XAPI task queue

You might also want to check out IRC xen-api on freenode On May 21, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Nguyen Anh Tu wrote: > Perfect, Chiradeep. Exactly what i'm looking for. How about xapi queue? > Could u send me more information about it > > Thanks :-) > > Sent from my GT-N7000 > On 22 May 2013 00:19, "Ch

RE: [ACS41] Outstanding Blockers - Please Read!

Thank Ove, I am looking at it. Will update the ticket soon. -Prachi -Original Message- From: Ove Ewerlid [mailto:ove.ewer...@oracle.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:50 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Prachi Damle Subject: Re: [ACS41] Outstanding Blockers - Please Read! On 05/21/201

Re: [ACS41] Outstanding Blockers - Please Read!

On 05/21/2013 12:51 AM, Prachi Damle wrote: I am looking into CLOUDSTACK-2568 Hi Prachi! The extra info you requested has been uploaded to the jira-ticket. Regards, Ove Thanks, Prachi -Original Message- From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2

Re: About XAPI task queue

Perfect, Chiradeep. Exactly what i'm looking for. How about xapi queue? Could u send me more information about it Thanks :-) Sent from my GT-N7000 On 22 May 2013 00:19, "Chiradeep Vittal" wrote: > Also > http://docs.vmd.citrix.com/XenServer/4.0.1/sdk/ch04.html#id2538486 > > > On 5/21/13 10:12 A

Re: About XAPI task queue

Also http://docs.vmd.citrix.com/XenServer/4.0.1/sdk/ch04.html#id2538486 On 5/21/13 10:12 AM, "Chiradeep Vittal" wrote: >Are you looking for information on how XAPI does async processing? >http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/VM_Startup > >http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/XAPI_Dispatch > > >On 5/21/13 1:52 AM, "Ngu

Re: About XAPI task queue

Are you looking for information on how XAPI does async processing? http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/VM_Startup http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/XAPI_Dispatch On 5/21/13 1:52 AM, "Nguyen Anh Tu" wrote: >no one can explain it for me? > > >2013/5/10 Nguyen Anh Tu > >> Hi forks, >> >> I'm working on CS + XCP. I

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

Edison, Thanks, I will start going through it today. Based on other $dayjob responsibilities, it may take me a couple of days. Thanks, -John On May 20, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Edison Su wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Edison Su [mailto:edison...@citrix.com] >> Sent: Monday, May

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

Prasanna, It seems to me our largest concern is that the impending 4.2 code freeze will create a priority conflict between stabilizing 4.1 and completing 4.2 features (including reviews). Would it be acceptable to push back the 4.2 until say two weeks after the first 4.1 RC ships? With this t

Re: Review Request: Automation: Add testcases for Affinity/Anti-Affinity Rules

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11067/ --- (Updated May 21, 2013, 3:06 p.m.) Review request for cloudstack, Prasanna Santh

Re: Review Request: CS-2273: Automation: Change account membership for VMs

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11307/ --- (Updated May 21, 2013, 3 p.m.) Review request for cloudstack, Likitha Shetty, P

Re: Review Request: Automation tests to qualify user provided hostname feature.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10793/#review20846 --- Ship it! 2bc88ea277a4024afd3b365910ea9f85fde44ebf Consider using t

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

Hi We didn't so much choose the Security Groups feature as we found that the VLAN option, which is the only other option available in 2.2.13, wouldn't let us achieve what we had in mind in terms of Network Architecture. This was more of a default choice. Our need was/is to : - use external ga

Re: [DISCUSS] Do we need a 4.0.3?

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:19:05AM -0500, 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 a

[DISCUSS] Do we need a 4.0.3?

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

Re: [ACS402][URGENT] RBD/Ceph integration broken

On 05/21/2013 04:08 PM, Chip Childers wrote: On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 04:06:18PM +0200, Wido den Hollander wrote: Hi, I just came into contact with a user on IRC who was running into problems with 4.0.2 due to this RBD bug. Can we cherry-pick this back to 4.0 and release 4.0.3? There wasn't a

Re: [ACS402][URGENT] RBD/Ceph integration broken

On Tue, May 21, 2013, at 09:08 AM, Chip Childers wrote: > There wasn't a plan to do a 4.0.3, but I guess you could run with it if > you wanted to push that out there. Alternatively, help getting 4.1.0 > out the door (with this fix) could be another path to helping that user. I'm planning to be of

Re: VMWare SCSI Controller Type

Hi, I posted this in the users mailing-list, but I would like to hear from the dev side about it since I did not have satisfaction on the answers :) Basically, there are 4 different SCSI controller type within VMWare 5.1 (PVSCSI,BUS,SAS, and Parallel). We should be able to select the type fr

Re: [ACS402][URGENT] RBD/Ceph integration broken

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 04:06:18PM +0200, Wido den Hollander wrote: > Hi, > > I just came into contact with a user on IRC who was running into > problems with 4.0.2 due to this RBD bug. > > Can we cherry-pick this back to 4.0 and release 4.0.3? There wasn't a plan to do a 4.0.3, but I guess you

Re: [ACS402][URGENT] RBD/Ceph integration broken

Hi, I just came into contact with a user on IRC who was running into problems with 4.0.2 due to this RBD bug. Can we cherry-pick this back to 4.0 and release 4.0.3? It's currently breaking all setups who are using RBD or want to start deploying with RBD. Wido On 05/17/2013 10:21 AM, Wido

Re: Review Request: Fix unresolved max_value in test_project_limits.py

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11303/#review20844 --- Ship it! b74d13f9b1daf7e09fa3fa23d963b20ed12e588a - Prasanna Santh

Re: Review Request: Fix a typo in test_vpc_network.py

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11304/#review20843 --- Ship it! 1736031fcbd51bcac29f2bd0feef0018bd27c715 - Prasanna Santh

Re: Review Request: CS-2474: Remove garbage code which was added while resolving merge conflicts.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11306/#review20842 --- Ship it! a8975f9 - Prasanna Santhanam On May 21, 2013, 11:45 a.m

Re: Review Request: CS-2273: Automation: Change account membership for VMs

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11307/ --- (Updated May 21, 2013, 1:18 p.m.) Review request for cloudstack, Prasanna Santh

Review Request: CS-2273: Automation: Change account membership for VMs

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11307/ --- Review request for cloudstack, Prasanna Santhanam and Girish Shilamkar. Descrip

Re: [DISCUSS] EIP Enhancements FS & Design Document

On 20/05/13 11:31 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote: >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

Re: Review Request: Cloudstack-2606 [Multiple_IP_Ranges] Syntax error in dnsmasq config file

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11305/#review20839 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Abhinandan Prateek On May 21, 2013, 11:41 a.

Re: Review Request: CS-2474: Remove garbage code which was added while resolving merge conflicts.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11306/ --- (Updated May 21, 2013, 11:45 a.m.) Review request for cloudstack and Prasanna S

Review Request: CS-2474: Remove garbage code which was added while resolving merge conflicts.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11306/ --- Review request for cloudstack and Prasanna Santhanam. Description --- Remo

Re: Unable to start System VM's in KVM Failing with error Domain is Tainted with high-privilages

Actually, the issue is right here. Sorry, I was on my phone earlier and didn't parse the whole log. qemu: terminating on signal 15 from pid 26206 2013-05-04 13:57:11.189+: shutting down So the reason it won't start is most likely because cloudstack is starting it and shutting it down. On Tue

Re: Unable to start System VM's in KVM Failing with error Domain is Tainted with high-privilages

Those were just examples of things it could say. My point was that the individual VM log will tell why it didn't start. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Rajesh Battala wrote: > Apparmor is not installed . Selinux is in permissive mode. I think it's not > the problem with Selinux > >> -Origin

Review Request: Cloudstack-2606 [Multiple_IP_Ranges] Syntax error in dnsmasq config file

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11305/ --- Review request for cloudstack, Abhinandan Prateek and Koushik Das. Description

RE: Unable to start System VM's in KVM Failing with error Domain is Tainted with high-privilages

Apparmor is not installed . Selinux is in permissive mode. I think it's not the problem with Selinux > -Original Message- > From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:15 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: RE: Unable to start System VM's i

Review Request: Fix a typo in test_vpc_network.py

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11304/ --- Review request for cloudstack and Prasanna Santhanam. Description --- Fix

Review Request: Fix unresolved max_value in test_project_limits.py

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11303/ --- Review request for cloudstack and Prasanna Santhanam. Description --- Fix

Re: Review Request: Automation tests to qualify user provided hostname feature.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10793/ --- (Updated May 21, 2013, 11:01 a.m.) Review request for cloudstack, Prasanna Sant

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

On May 20, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > >> -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

Re: Review Request: Automation tests to qualify user provided hostname feature.

> On April 26, 2013, 10:42 a.m., Prasanna Santhanam wrote: > > test/integration/component/test_custom_hostname.py, line 265 > > > > > > How's this test different from the previous one? Should the setting be > > false?

RE: Unable to start System VM's in KVM Failing with error Domain is Tainted with high-privilages

The tainted message means nothing. Look at /var/log/libvirtd/qemu/v-2-VM.log. it might say permission denied to the VM image, vm image missing, or that apparmor/selinux is blocking access to the virtio serial socket, or something else. On May 21, 2013 3:31 AM, "Rajesh Battala" wrote: > From the l

Re: Review Request: Cloudstack-2548 [Automation] Failed to delete public IP range

> On May 21, 2013, 8:53 a.m., Prasanna Santhanam wrote: > > Please add > > > > BUG-ID: Fix summary > > > > Detail > > > > This enables the commit to go against the JIRA ticket through git2jira. > > Plus it also helps explain the fix better than 'bvt-fix' > > > > > > Prasanna Santhanam wro

Re: Review Request: Cloudstack-2548 [Automation] Failed to delete public IP range

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11297/ --- (Updated May 21, 2013, 9:44 a.m.) Review request for cloudstack, Abhinandan Pra

RE: Unable to start System VM's in KVM Failing with error Domain is Tainted with high-privilages

>From the log, libvirt version: 0.9.10 and it's is from package: 21.el6 x86-003.build.bos.redhat.com) Thanks Rajesh Battala > -Original Message- > From: Prasanna Santhanam [mailto:t...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:56 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: Una

Re: Unable to start System VM's in KVM Failing with error Domain is Tainted with high-privilages

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 08:55:23AM +, Rajesh Battala wrote: > This issue I saw while looking at the logs for the issue > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2330 [[Automation] Failed to > deploy VR in KVM]. > > Build/Code is from the latest master branch. Latest system templates

  1   2   >