Dear Ron,
It's old I believe.
--Tuna
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
> http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/en/master/networking/ovs-plugin.html
> has the following sentence:
> "CentOS 6.4 and OpenvSwitch 1.10 are recommended." These seem to be very
> old. Are they really the
http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/en/master/networking/ovs-plugin.html
has the following sentence:
"CentOS 6.4 and OpenvSwitch 1.10 are recommended." These seem to be very
old. Are they really the recommended versions?
Ron
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact
On the page
http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/en/master/networking/ovs-plugin.html
"Configuring the OVS Plugin"
starts with
"Prerequisites"
which opens with this sentence
"Before enabling the OVS plugin the hypervisor needs to be install
OpenvSwitch."
which needs to be fixed.
Does "Before enabl
GitHub user bvbharatk opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/898
CLOUDSTACK-89027 Restart Network fails in EIP/ELB zone
The restart network was failing when using external loadbalencer. The
failure was because of a number format exception. When
BroadcastDo
http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/en/master/concepts.html#what-is-apache-cloudstack
In the opening paragraph of About Physical Networks" it says
"The network corresponds to a NIC on the hypervisor host."
In Basic Zone Network Traffic Types it says that there is only one
physical network in the
Github user bvbharatk commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/865#issuecomment-143944642
The above travis error is because of a failure to do git pull below are the
relevant logs.
system_info
Build system information
Build language
Hi,
Following is the status of machines on http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/
* cca-slave-01 - Dead
* cca-slave-02 - Dead
* cca-slave-03 - Dead
* coohq-slave-01 - Dead
* msaz-slave-01 - Dead
* msaz-slave-02 - Dead
* test-infra-common - D
Thanks Boris, I'll package this tomorrow and test again.
Lucian
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
- Original Message -
> From: "boris"
> To: "dev"
> Sent: Monday, 28 September, 2015 23:16:35
> Subject: Re: [4.6] Master fails to add secondary storag
Hi Nux,
The only thing I can say right now; that Jenkins job didn't run for the past
week. So maybe it has already been fixed, maybe not. Could you try package it
yourself and deploy again? That way you know the problem still persists. And if
it does, please file a Jira ticket!
Best regards,
Bor
Any ideas?
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
- Original Message -
> From: "Nux!"
> To: "dev"
> Sent: Monday, 28 September, 2015 19:39:43
> Subject: [4.6] Master fails to add secondary storage network, deployment fails
> Hello,
>
> Am testing 4.6 m
If you are thinking on using Xen, this link might provide you with some
clarification about CPU requirements.
http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX123491?_ga=1.929334.668244781.1422273077
As far as I understand, when creating a cluster you should match CPUs. The
amount of memory in each host does
http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/en/master/concepts.html#what-is-apache-cloudstack
In "About Clusters" it says:
"The hosts in a cluster all have identical hardware, run the same
hypervisor, are on the same subnet, and access the same shared primary
storage."
Later in the "About Hosts" it says
I am running 4.5.2 on Centos7.
Thanks to all who posted helpful hints on the ML and on private blogs.
When I click on "Help" I get a page that has a "Latest Announcement"
"Announcing Apache CloudStack 4.3.2 on the left side of the page and a
"Get CloudStack" saying that Apache CloudStack 4.5.2
Hi everyone,
Next week 8-9 is CCC Dublin.
There is still time to register and tell your friends to come.
http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/cloudstack-collaboration-conference-europe
There is one or two spots available on the schedule, if have something exciting
to talk about please drop
ok so :)
While fixing your broken stuff , he broke some other stuff which you attempted
to fix but broke other stuff doing it, so he decided to fix your broken stuff
that was supposed to fix the broken stuff he did to improve old stuff.
Great 0-0, ball in the middle.
Let’s fix some blockers, a
Hello,
Am testing 4.6 master with CentOS 6 HVs.
After installing 4.6 from yum repo at
http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/4.6/job/package-centos6-4.6/ and running
the initial setup, it fails at the end because "unknwon parameters zoneid" ... :
2015-09-28 19:34:15,072 DEBUG [o.a.c.f.j.i.AsyncJo
GitHub user nitin-maharana opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/897
CLOUDSTACK-8919: Slow UI response while loading the list of networks in
network tab.
Instead of searching for each network, now it is searching for each zone.
For basic zone, it will
Hi Wilder,
I think you are taking this in a wrong way. I am not pissed because people are
asking for tests. I am pissed with the blame game that is being played in the
community, I do not understand why do we need to sight PRs and try to blame
others, other who trying to fix the bugs which we
GitHub user yvsubhash opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/896
CLOUDSTACK-8908 After copying the template charging for that template is
getting stopped
This is happening as the zone id is not part of the query. Zone id is
added to the query and unit tes
Koushik,
Please, say my name! Don’t mention stuff like “the person blah blah blah”,
please! If you want to start pointing fingers, I can also play this game and
get references to the PRs which were not tested, pushed straight to master
(when we agreed on not doing so) or got 2 LGTM without any
inline
On 28-Sep-2015, at 9:15 PM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> Let me try to reply,
>
>> On Sep 28, 2015, at 5:17 PM, Koushik Das wrote:
>>
>> I had asked for the documentation on persistent VR (PR # 118) changes in the
>> context of another discussion and this is what I got at that time.
>>
Let me try to reply,
> On Sep 28, 2015, at 5:17 PM, Koushik Das wrote:
>
> I had asked for the documentation on persistent VR (PR # 118) changes in the
> context of another discussion and this is what I got at that time.
> http://dev.cloudstack.apache.narkive.com/MH47etbS/discuss-out-of-band-vr
I had asked for the documentation on persistent VR (PR # 118) changes in the
context of another discussion and this is what I got at that time.
http://dev.cloudstack.apache.narkive.com/MH47etbS/discuss-out-of-band-vr-migration-should-we-reboot-vr-or-not#post39
Right now as I see from the discus
Github user borisroman commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/895#issuecomment-143750945
Hi @SudharmaJain,
The pull-analysis failed due to a segfault in the surefire plugin. This
will probably be unrelated, though please force push your commit
I agree with the docs stuff, that I said 5 emails ago.
Once things are fixed, I will take the time to understand the code as a whole
and write the documentation: we will need ir for release purposes anyway.
Cheers,
Wilder
> On 28 Sep 2015, at 14:47, Bharat Kumar wrote:
>
> Hi Wilder,
>
> I
Hi Wilder,
I am not talking about just the vpc networks. There are many other ares getting
effected because of this, some of them are vpn(not implemented) , rvr in
isolated networks etc.
All i am saying is the design doc will help us understand the complete impact
of the changes and deal with
Folks let’s chill for a second here,
Let’s be pragmatic:
First,
- Master got unstable with lots of issues related to the VPC
- Issues were fixed
- Let’s go back to blockers, fix and release 4.6
Second,
- We have a postmortem from Remi.
- Let’s talk it out, first with the folks that will be in
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Wilder Rodrigues <
wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> Only few tests…. 51 tests against a real environment.
>
...
and then a lot of people wrote a lot more.
@Bharat, @Raja,
I hope you don't see design as part of quality assurance. It is not. It is
only usef
Only few tests…. 51 tests against a real environment.
At that time Nux also tested it and we tried to get Paul Angus, Geoff and Rohit
from Shape Blue to test it as well. Nux found a couple of issues that were
reported and fixed (see email below).
When I came back from holidays, 4 weeks ago, a P
Hi guys,
Anyway of all the things said and done I think we all agree that we need some
documentation related to python changes.
Regards,
Bharat.
On 28-Sep-2015, at 5:46 pm, Wilder Rodrigues
wrote:
> Hi Bharat,
>
> Perhaps you haven’t been away of not reading all the email that were sent to
My 2 cents... agree with Bharat - this was such a critical piece... changing of
VR scripts from bash to python. Most of the 4.6 blockers filed were around
this.
the FS -
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Refactoring+Redundant+Virtual+Router+Implementation,
I see which i
Dude,
There was nothing friendly about the postmortem you did, It was only partial,
we should do a complete postmortem and then draw conclusions.
I think the post-mortems like this are of no use if we do not do them
completely.
Regards,
Bharat.
On 28-Sep-2015, at 5:39 pm, Remi Bergsma wrote:
GitHub user SudharmaJain opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/895
CLOUDSTACK-8911: VM start job got stuck in loop looking for suitable â¦
â¦host
VM instance creation job get stuck in the loop, when VMs require local
storage there are host that
Github user kansal commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/826#issuecomment-143727275
@remibergsma Rebased against the master. Repro steps are as follows:
1) Create two VMs in new isolated networks, testnet1 and testnet2.
2) Enable VPN in testnet
Hi Bharat,
Perhaps you haven’t been away of not reading all the email that were sent to
the list in the past. Why am I saying that? just based on your sentence where
you said “i wonder why was this ignored when merging the VR refactor code"
Is there any particular point you want to make that w
Hi Sebastien,
You are confused, we are talking about persistent VR config changes. below is
the pr related to it.
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/118
If you look at it you will notice that there are more than 250 commits and only
a few tests that were run.
Regards,
Bharat.
On 28-Se
Dude, this is the final friendly email about his. All points have been made in
previous mails. This has nothing to do with ‘blameless’ and ‘learning’ anymore.
Read Seb’s mail. We will move on now.
Regards, Remi
On 28/09/15 13:54, "Bharat Kumar" wrote:
>Hi Remi,
>
>Whatever ever we think
Github user sudhansu7 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/799#issuecomment-143724455
@remibergsma
rebased against current master and also squashed 4 commits to one.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and h
Hi Remi,
Whatever ever we think we have discovered are all well known best practices
while developing code in community.
I agree that tests need to be run on a new PR, but i wonder why was this
ignored when merging the VR refactor code. Perhaps we will uncover some more
issues if we investi
Github user SudharmaJain commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/880#discussion_r40543530
--- Diff: server/src/com/cloud/configuration/Config.java ---
@@ -1999,7 +1999,9 @@
// StatsCollector
StatsOutPutGraphiteHost("Advanc
+1
There are two VR related issues left:
- CLOUDSTACK-8697: Assign VPC Internal LB rule to a VM fails
- CLOUDSTACK-8915: Cannot SSH into VMs deployed Redundant VPC routers
The first one has been tested today and seems still present. The second we
discovered this weekend while testing. It was bro
> On Sep 28, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 28, 2015, at 1:14 PM, Remi Bergsma
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bharat,
>>
>>
>> There is only one way to prove a feature works: with tests. That’s why I say
>> actually _running_ the tests we have today on any new PR, is the mo
> On Sep 28, 2015, at 1:14 PM, Remi Bergsma wrote:
>
> Hi Bharat,
>
>
> There is only one way to prove a feature works: with tests. That’s why I say
> actually _running_ the tests we have today on any new PR, is the most
> important thing. Having no documentation is a problem, I agree, but i
Hi Bharat,
There is only one way to prove a feature works: with tests. That’s why I say
actually _running_ the tests we have today on any new PR, is the most important
thing. Having no documentation is a problem, I agree, but it is not more
important IMHO. If we had the documentation, we still
GitHub user sudhansu7 opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/894
CLOUDSTACK-8917 : Instance tab takes long time to load with 12K Vms
modified sql that is used for retrieving vm count .
In load test environment listVirtualmachine takes 8-11 sec to lo
Hi Remi,
i do not agree with “There is no bigger problem” part of your reply. so I had
to repeat myself to make it more clear, Not because i am not aware of what this
thread is supposed to do.
Regards,
Bharat.
On 28-Sep-2015, at 2:51 pm, Remi Bergsma wrote:
> Hi Bharat,
>
> I understand
Github user koushik-das commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/880#discussion_r40532523
--- Diff: server/src/com/cloud/configuration/Config.java ---
@@ -1999,7 +1999,9 @@
// StatsCollector
StatsOutPutGraphiteHost("Advance
Github user remibergsma commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/890#issuecomment-143689040
Thanks @borisroman I'll run soms tests today.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If
Hi Bharat,
I understand your frustrations but we already agreed on this so no need to
repeat. This thread is supposed to list some improvements and learn from it.
Your point has been taken so let’s move on.
We need documentation first, then do a change after which all tests should
pass. Even b
Github user remibergsma commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/885#issuecomment-143685748
@resmo Thanks! I'll run some tests today.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Hi Remi,
I never intended to say that we should not run tests, but even before tests we
should have proper documentation. My concern was if a major change is being
introduced it should be properly documented. All the issues which we are trying
to fix are majorly due to VR refactor. If there was
Hi Bharat,
There is no bigger problem. We should always run the tests and if we find a
case that isn’t currently covered by the tests we should simply add tests for
it. There’s no way we’ll get a stable master without them. The fact that they
may not cover everything, is no reason to not rely o
Github user wilderrodrigues commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/879#issuecomment-143670869
Hi @pdion891 ,
But the PR is going against Master, so testing it against 4.5 only and
giving a LGTM is a bit pointless.
Could you please exe
Hi Remi,
Thank you for the Blame less postmortem.
I think there is a bigger problem here than just the review process and running
tests. Even if we run the tests we cannot be sure that every thing will work as
intended. The tests will only give some level of confidence. The tests may not
cove
> On Sep 28, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Sanjeev N wrote:
>
> I have a concern here. Some of us are actively involved in reviewing the
> PRs related to marvin tests(Enhancing existing tests/Adding new tests). If
> we have to test a PR it requires an environment to be created with actual
> resources and th
55 matches
Mail list logo
