Github user cloudmonger commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
### ACS CI BVT Run
**Sumarry:**
Build Number 412
Hypervisor xenserver
NetworkType Advanced
Passed=104
Failed=1
Skipped=7
_Link to logs Folder (searc
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
Packaging result: âcentos6 âcentos7 âdebian. JID-211
---
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 project d
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@rhtyd a Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. I'll keep you
posted as I make progress.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appe
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@nvazquez @jburwell @serg38 @rafaelweingartner ping
@blueorangutan package
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If y
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@serg38 I have this PR on a list to re-review. In my view, using a global
setting for this value is whole inappropriate. I have been busy with other
items, and haven't had a chance to get bac
Github user rafaelweingartner commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@serg38 giving your explanations I am ok with your proposal. Just one
addendum, I think we should document it as much as possible.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@rafaelweingartner @rhtyd Do we make any decision on this? The scope of
this PR was very limited initially. It would be much easier if we don't expand
it too far.
---
If your project is set up
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@rafaelweingartner In usage_evant_details there will be never details with
event_id=0 so there will be no conflict ever if we do it this way. Based on the
code there are some details e.g. CPU spe
Github user rafaelweingartner commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
I understand why you want to use something that already exists, instead of
creating a new table/DAO/service class.
Isnât this table (event_details) used for anything else?
If
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@rhtyd @jburwell @rafaelweingartner Can we use event_details table which
is not used at the moment? if we consider sanity job to generate event_id=0
then max_id can be easily represented there a
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@serg38 since we don't have a general key/value store table, we may need to
create a new table in `cloud_usage` db.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@jburwell @rhtyd What are your ideas on where in DB to store it?
---
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 project do
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@jburwell Creating a new table to hold one setting seems to be excessive.
How about using sequence table? In this regard last_Id used by usage sanity
checker is a sequence.
---
If your project
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@serg38 I completely agree that it should be in the database, but it's not
a configuration setting. Furthermore, it requires a different transactional
behavior to operate properly. Therefore,
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@rhtyd @jburwell @rafaelweingartner I agree with @rhtyd to move sanity
checker last_id to the DB. No reason to keep in in file system. How about using
"usage.sanity.check.lastid in configurati
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@rhtyd @jburwell Can this be merged?
---
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 project does not have this feature
ena
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
LGTM with smoke testing. RHEL 6 management servers, advanced networking,
Vmware 5.5 .and 6 hypervisors
[root@ussarlabcsmgt41 smoke]# cat
/tmp//MarvinLogs/test_volumes_340FH1/result
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@abhinandanprateek do you have time to test this PR when upgrading a a
clustered usage server environment from 4.9 to master?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email
Github user nvazquez commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@jburwell Sure, they are squashed now
---
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 project does not have this feature
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@rhtyd Confirming. No issues on usage and management servers.
---
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 project does
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@serg38 sorry the `test` keyword is restricted to RMs and few other people
for now. There are failure that causes initial setup to fail. Can you confirm
if this (mgmt server and usage server) work
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@nvazquez could you please squash your commits?
---
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 project does not have thi
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@blueorangutan test
---
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 project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes s
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@karuturi a Trillian-Jenkins test job (centos7 mgmt + vmware-55u3) has been
kicked to run smoke tests against packages at
http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/pr/1593
---
If your pro
Github user karuturi commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@blueorangutan test
---
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 project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@serg38 we require Marvin test results and, as well as, the results of any
manual tests to be posted into the PR. This information is a pre-requisite for
merging PRs. Please see other closed
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@jburwell LGTM for the test part. This PR was extensively tested on
Environment: RHEL 6 management servers, Vmware ESX5.5 and 6.0 with advanced
networking
---
If your project is set up for
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@serg38 I only see code review LGTMs. We need at least one test LGTM
before this PR. In this case, those tests must be run against real hardware and
hypervisors. Also, we need an LGTM from al
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@karuturi @jburwell There are 2 LGTM in this PR. Packaging, Travis and
Jenkins all passed. Can this be merged?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
r
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
Packaging result: âcentos6 âcentos7 âdebian repo:
http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/pr/1593
Job ID #65
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email a
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
Packaging result: âcentos6 âcentos7 âdebian repo:
http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/pr/1593
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
re
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@rhtyd a Trillian-Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. I'll keep
you posted as I make progress.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
r
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@blueorangutan package
---
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 project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes
Github user nvazquez commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
Thanks @jburwell for your review!
About your first question, as @serg38 said file will be created on sanity
check run if it didn't exist, and then it would just update it.
Abou
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@jburwell If no sanity-check-last-id is present it will run Sanity on the
whole cloud_usage data set and then create a new sanity-check-last-id file. The
whole part of sanity checking related to
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@swill I noticed that the associated JIRA ticket was opened after the 4.9.0
freeze, but is targeted against 4.9.0. Should it be included in 4.9 or
deferred to 4.10?
---
If your project is se
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
@nvazquez when users upgrade existing usage servers, will the location
change of the ```sanity-check-last-id``` file impact their operation?
/cc @abhinandanprateek
---
If your projec
Github user nvazquez commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
Thanks @wido! I refactored debian packaging and added fedora21's
`cloud.spec` file
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as wel
Github user wido commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593
Packaging changes seem good to me. Java changes as well.
Based on the code this is LGTM to me
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear o
39 matches
Mail list logo
