Status of ACS and OpenDayLight

Hi everyone, Does anyone know the status of CloudStack and OpenDayLight connectivity? I would like to learn how to make them work together to do more work with SDN. Thank you, Matt

Re: [DISCUSS] Paddling for CloudMonkey 5.3.0 release

Can someone help me understand what tables the deleteVlanIpRange calls to do it¹s IP check before deleting an IP range? I¹m trying to remove a range and getting told that 3 IPs are still being used and I can¹t find where they are. Thanks, Matt

Re: [DISCUSS] CloudStack Future

I¹d like to contribute some ideas if possible. Matt Mullins Cloud Architect Americas Cloud Consulting ­ Citrix System, Inc. +1 (407) 920-1107 ­ Office/Cell Phone matt.mull...@citrix.com On 9/16/14, 8:54 AM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote: >Joe, You do mean you want to be added as a member of this b

Need help clearing out the Async Queue

Folks, Looks like I have a job stuck in the async queue that I need to clear. How do you clear out the async queue please? Thanks Matt

Issue with CloudStack-Usage 4.2.1 - Possible broken mirrors

Folks, I’m in Mexico installing CloudStack-Usage package and I believe we may have some broken mirrors. I have also heard about this as well in Germany too. I would need some help with more confirmation. Right now using the RHEL repository, I’m getting back that Cloud-Temp cannot install. Clou

Re: www.cloudstack.org not resolving

David, Who do we need to reach out too? We are in day 3 of outage now? Matt On 9/11/13 9:58 PM, "David Nalley" wrote: >The ASF has taken charge of the domains, but I suspect DNS is lagging a >bit. > >--David > >On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Mathias Mullin

www.cloudstack.org not resolving

Cloudstack.org isn't resolving. Cloudstack.apache.org is up and running. Do we need to get a hold of infrastructure? Matt Mullins Cloud Platforms Implementation Engineer Worldwide Cloud Services – Citrix System, Inc. +1 (407) 920-1107 – Office/Cell Phone matt.mull...@citrix.com

Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)

etting the release out and what was counting. Was trying to help a non-bias party. :-) Matt On 9/10/13 12:05 AM, "Chip Childers" wrote: >On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Mathias Mullins >wrote: > >> Technically I don't see any binding -1 vetoes being declared.

Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)

Technically I don't see any binding -1 vetoes being declared. Animesh is correct on this. Just as a reminder on the terms of a release vote as per the by-laws (http://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html) "3.4.4. Product Release When a release of one of the project's products is ready, a vote is re

Re: why do we need 8096?

Hi Darren, It's a very commonly used port for many installations that want an unauthenticated API access, especially from other tools and systems. I think getting rid of this would be really bad idea. Matt On 9/4/13 1:49 PM, "Darren Shepherd" wrote: >Why do we need an unauthenticated backdoo

Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaw changes for new committer / new PMC member votes

I know, was a jokeŠ But they are also a representative of the project to the board and externally as well. Matt On 7/26/13 4:02 PM, "Chip Childers" wrote: >On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 07:59:35PM +0000, Mathias Mullins wrote: >> This is the Leader of the Free (CloudSt

Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaw changes for new committer / new PMC member votes

for the Chair. > >Chip is proposing that the same applies to committers and PMC members. > >I see no reason to make it any more complex than that. > > >On 24 July 2013 18:33, Mathias Mullins wrote: > >> So I'm not even a committer yet, but this is an idea on how I

Apache Blogs Down

Looks like Apache Blogs are down again. Can anyone confirm? Matt

Re: [VOTE] Update by-laws to add section for non-technical decision making (Was: Re: [RESULTS][SUMMARY][DISCUSS][VOTE] List CloudStack related books on the website)

I'm not a committer so I don't want really to take this one on the Bylaws side. :-) Matt On 7/24/13 1:19 PM, "Noah Slater" wrote: >Nope. Sorry. Feel free to run with it. If not, I can see about doing >another vote in the next few days. > > >On 24 July

Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaw changes for new committer / new PMC member votes

So I'm not even a committer yet, but this is an idea on how I think I would want to be voted in. For Committer - 2/3 Lazy This makes sure that at least 2 people basically nominated, and seconded and the votes were 2:1 in favor of the person coming in. For PMC - 3/4 Lazy This is the leadership of

Re: [VOTE] Update by-laws to add section for non-technical decision making (Was: Re: [RESULTS][SUMMARY][DISCUSS][VOTE] List CloudStack related books on the website)

Noah, Did you ever review / report / re-vote this? Thanks, Matt On 6/25/13 11:17 AM, "Noah Slater" wrote: >Thanks for the feedback, Matt. > >Anyone else got any feedback on this? Might cut a new vote. > > >On 24 June 2013 05:12, Mathias Mullins wrote: > &g

Re: New user - Introduction

Welcome René! Glad to have you join. Matt On 7/19/13 4:19 AM, "René Diepstraten" wrote: >Hi everyone. > >Since I have joined the mailing list, I'd like to say hello and introduce >myself. >My name is Rene Diepstraten, am a system administrator and the company I >work for ( PCextreme ) uses Ap

Re: [rant] stupid test cases

Prasanna, If we broke these tests down into smaller test specific test cases, could we automate them into one specific end-to-end test together? I.e. (And I'm over simplifying this for the sake of the e-mail) 1. Create Zone 2. Create Domain 3. Create Accounts 4. Create Users 5. Create Networks

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

On 7/10/13 8:59 AM, "David Nalley" wrote: >On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Chip Childers > wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:45:39AM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: >>> >>> >>> > -----Original Message- >>> > From: Mathias

Re: CloudStack News - Moving to Wednesday

>>-- >> Yu-Heng (Ryan) Lei, Associate Reasearcher >> Chunghwa Telecom Laboratories / Cloud Computing Laboratory >> >>ryan...@cht.com.tw<https://email.cht.com.tw/owa/redir.aspx?C=-wE1FEC3G0SW >>YpVkiWo8SsDdf3ZqO9AIuAPTzRnFYCUi-z4YljtI_hyVK

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

I've been watching from the outside and tracking the entire discussion, and with what has happened with the delays with 4.0 and 4.1 am worried that this could be come the next delayer to the release of 4.2. At the same time, I'm very much in agreement with David N., Chip and John B. that we can't j

Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?

I've also sent a request off to Mirantis to see if they could lend any expertise to the fire to help. Cheers, Matt On 7/9/13 3:19 PM, "Joe Brockmeier" wrote: >On Tue, Jul 9, 2013, at 03:15 PM, Edison Su wrote: >> Could they(swiftstack) help us, or guide us on how to implement >> multi-part up

Regions in 4.1

Did the regions model get fully implemented in 4.1? Is it usable and functional? Has anyone actually deployed it yet with the 4.1 release? Thanks, Matt

CloudStack News - Moving to Wednesday

- Multi-list send since this is a community wide announcement Just a reminder, the community news blog is moving to being published on Wednesdays starting this week on July 10! This is to make it more timely with the data that we are working on throughout the week. Please make sure to have any

[DISCUSS] System vm template and upgrade from 4.1 to 4.2

Updated the [DISCUSS] tag on this to get more visibility. +1 on this. We need to make sure that we keep these upgrades for every version. This helps to maintain our security hardening on the system VMs and thus the systems running behind them. Thanks Matt On 7/2/13 1:00 PM, "Abhinandan Pratee

Re: In-Development Release Naming

Definitely a +1 Matt On 7/1/13 2:28 PM, "John Burwell" wrote: >All, > >Since we have adopted Semantic Versioning [1], it seems odd that we >designate a release version before the final set of enhancements/fixes >has been identified. For example, the release proceeding 4.2 may contain >no bac

Re: How to remove General / Host Alerts

So there is no way through the GUI to actually remove the Alerts. They stay there until they permanently (on the dashboard they will roll-off). Matt From: Maurice Lawler mailto:maurice.law...@me.com>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" mailto:dev@cloudstack.

Re: [VOTE] Update by-laws to add section for non-technical decision making (Was: Re: [RESULTS][SUMMARY][DISCUSS][VOTE] List CloudStack related books on the website)

Noah, I agree that there needs to be a delineation. Here's my option on wording describing what is non-technical: +3.4.2. Non-Technical Decisions +Non-technical decisions should normally be made by the entire community using +discussion-lead consensus-building, and not through formal voting. +

RE: [Discuss][Proposal] Configurable option for egress firewall rules default policy

VERY +1 on this feature. From: Chip Childers [chip.child...@sungard.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:18 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Chiradeep Vittal Subject: Re: [Discuss][Proposal] Configurable option for egress firewall rules default poli

Re: Contributing as a non-committer

Ok, Alex and I'Ll start e-mailing you through Elm too! :-) Matt On 6/10/13 11:03 PM, "Alex Huang" wrote: >> Forget about eclipse for now :) just use vi :) > >Why don't we just go back to ed? > >--Alex

Re: [GSoC] Accounts vs User

Ian, I'm going to add one more example that may clears it up for a lot of people I work with. Accounts are the organization / company / group , etc... Users are the people in that organization / company / group 1. With active Directory it is usually more logical to map the OU to the Cloudstack

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

Reading through this and seeing Chiradeep's passionate comments here and reasoning. I'Ll go from -1 to +1 on this. Especially since we will see this in 4.2. I still think it's a bruise, but hopefully will not be a black eye. Matt On 5/22/13 10:24 AM, "Chip Childers" wrote: >On Wed, May 22,

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

-1 on this. New features really should be across the board for the Hypervisors. Part of the thing that distinguishes ACS is it's support across Xen / VMware / KVM. Do we really want to start getting in the habit of pushing forward new features that are not across the fully functional hypervisors?