> Subject: 32 vs 64 bit systemvm on 43 and secondary NFS storage used /
> > capacity Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
> >
> > Has anyone else seen below behavior with 4.3.0 RC 8?
> >
> > - with 32 bit system VM, the secondary storage is repor
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Florin,
I had a similar issue earlier today.
My solution was to cleanup everything from previous builds - i did not figure
what exactly got corrupted where, but i did have layered installs of ACS4.2.1
on
e:
http://imgur.com/FL9OnY0
Thanks,
Florin
-Original Message-
From: Florin Dumitrascu [mailto:florin.dumitra...@intunenetworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 5:11 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Hi,
I am trying to create an
> -Original Message-
> From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 7:04 AM
> To: Animesh Chaturvedi
> Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Edison Su
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
> On 17.03.2014 22:39,
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Florin, can you check the output of the following DB query:
Select * from configuration where name="hypervisor.list"
On 3/18/14, 10:17 AM, "Florin Dumitrascu"
wrote:
>Apologies for the missing link. Screenshot
om/FL9OnY0
>
>Thanks,
>Florin
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Florin Dumitrascu [mailto:florin.dumitra...@intunenetworks.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 5:11 PM
>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
>Hi,
>
-Original Message-
From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:27 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Hi All,
I've created a 4.3.0 release, with the following artifacts up for a
vote:
Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:27 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Hi All,
I've created a 4.3.0 release, with the following artifacts up for a
vote:
Git Branch and Commit SH:
https:
On 17.03.2014 22:39, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
Edison
Thanks for taking care of this issue. Nux can you try with this fix
and I will go off building RC
Animesh, can you also pull in the patches Jayapal wrote to fix the
ipset issue?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6240
Than
ratosec.co]
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 2:48 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Likitha Shetty; Prachi Damle
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
> Thanks Sebastien. I had been intending to mail previous committers on the
> subdir.
>
>
On 17.03.2014 22:39, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
Edison
Thanks for taking care of this issue. Nux can you try with this fix
and I will go off building RC
Works for me! Thanks!
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
> -Original Message-
> From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:57 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
> On 17.03.2014 22:39, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> > Edison
> &
Cancelling this VOTE too because of Nux's finding of KVM SecurityGroup is
broken.
Thanks
Animesh
From: Animesh Chaturvedi
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 5:27 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Hi All,
I've created a 4.3.0 rel
o: dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Cc: Likitha Shetty; Prachi Damle
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Thanks Sebastien. I had been intending to mail previous committers on the
subdir.
Prachi/Likitha - any comments on https://reviews.apache
On 17.03.2014 22:39, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
Edison
Thanks for taking care of this issue. Nux can you try with this fix
and I will go off building RC
Animesh,
First thing tomorrow morning (gmt).
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 2:27 PM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
> >
> > On 15.03.2014 21:18, Sangeetha Hariharan w
> -Original Message-
> From: John Kinsella [mailto:j...@stratosec.co]
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 2:48 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Likitha Shetty; Prachi Damle
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
> Thanks Sebastien. I ha
.
I am afraid I do not know why these jars are needed or were added to this
project.
Prachi
From: John Kinsella [mailto:j...@stratosec.co]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 2:48 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Likitha Shetty; Prachi Damle
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round
15, 2014 2:27 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
> On 15.03.2014 21:18, Sangeetha Hariharan wrote:
> >>> In this case , is it possible that when you tried to ping the
> >>> instance , the instance ha
Thanks Sebastien. I had been intending to mail previous committers on the
subdir.
Prachi/Likitha - any comments on https://reviews.apache.org/r/18392/ would be
appreciated.
On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Sebastien Goasguen
mailto:run...@gmail.com>> wrote:
John, I am copying Likitha and Prachi
John, I am copying Likitha and Prachi who worked on awsapi, maybe they can help
-sebastien
On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:25 PM, John Kinsella wrote:
> Before we go to 9th round, let’s get
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6156 resolved.
>
> I’m pretty busy this week, but will see if
> -Original Message-
> From: John Kinsella [mailto:j...@stratosec.co]
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:26 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
> Before we go to 9th round, let's get
> https://
Before we go to 9th round, let’s get
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6156 resolved.
I’m pretty busy this week, but will see if I can come up with. Just tried doing
a clean awsapi build on a clean AWS instance again and it still fails.
On Mar 12, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Animesh Chatu
> -Original Message-
> From: Ove Ewerlid [mailto:ove.ewer...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 9:09 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: 32 vs 64 bit systemvm on 43 and secondary NFS storage used /
> capacity Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eigh
Has anyone else seen below behavior with 4.3.0 RC 8?
- with 32 bit system VM, the secondary storage is reported as 0/0
(this is at the agent level, not a GUI or manager issue)
- with 64 bit system VM, the secondary storage is reported OK.
Environment;
- ACS43RC8, installed from RPM on OE
@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
The following change will the be root cause:
-refs = execute("iptables -n -L " + brfw + " |grep " + brfw + " | cut
-d \( -f2 | awk '{print $1}'").strip()
+refs = execute(&quo
Here is the automation report on this RC:
On XenServer/BVT/Test Run: #1196 & #1197
all the failures are test/evn issues related to ssh.
Link to test results:
http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa-4.3/job/test-smoke-matrix
-4.3/1196/testReport/
http://jenkins.buildacl
On 15.03.2014 21:18, Sangeetha Hariharan wrote:
In this case , is it possible that when you tried to ping the
instance , the instance had not booted completely?
No, I made sure it's fully booted first.
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
, the
>> instance had not booted completely?
Thanks
Sangeetha
-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 4:02 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
On 15.03.2014 00:42, Edison Su wrot
On 15.03.2014 00:42, Edison Su wrote:
From my test, all the rules got applied. If you stop/start vm, will
the first rule get applied?
Let's for QA team's testing.
Hi Edison,
So I've found out when the first rule doesn't get applied.
Test 1:
I started with
- cloudstack-agent freshly restarted
> -Original Message-
> From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 4:15 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
> On 14.03.2014 21:57, Edison Su wrote:
> > Add a fix: e5c391fcf3852
On 14.03.2014 21:57, Edison Su wrote:
Add a fix: e5c391fcf3852e50ebd99d4a72fd51d1753b05eb on 4.3-forward
branch.
I do see the rule coming on the kvm host:
-A FORWARD -o cloudbr0 -m physdev --physdev-is-bridged -j BF-cloudbr0
-A FORWARD -i cloudbr0 -m physdev --physdev-is-bridged -j BF-cloudbr0
On 14.03.2014 21:57, Edison Su wrote:
Add a fix: e5c391fcf3852e50ebd99d4a72fd51d1753b05eb on 4.3-forward
branch.
I do see the rule coming on the kvm host:
-A FORWARD -o cloudbr0 -m physdev --physdev-is-bridged -j BF-cloudbr0
-A FORWARD -i cloudbr0 -m physdev --physdev-is-bridged -j BF-cloudbr0
> -Original Message-
> From: Edison Su [mailto:edison...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 2:57 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
> Add a fix: e5c391fcf3852e50ebd99d4a72fd51d1753b05eb on 4.3-
FORWARD -i cloudbr0 -j DROP
Animesh, could you cherry-pick it into 4.3?
> -Original Message-
> From: Edison Su [mailto:edison...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:59 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 2:28 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
>
>
> > -Original Me
> -Original Message-
> From: Edison Su [mailto:edison...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:59 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
> The following change will the be root cause:
>
&
+refs = execute("""iptables -n -L " + %s + " | awk
> '/%s(.*)references/ {gsub(/\(/, "") ;print $3}'""" % (brfw, brfw)).strip()
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
> > Sent: Fr
t;") ;print $3}'""" % (brfw, brfw)).strip()
> -Original Message-
> From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:13 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
> On 14.
On 14.03.2014 19:36, Edison Su wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:19 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
On 14.03.2014 19:14, Edison Su wrote:
Hi Nux,
Could you post
> -Original Message-
> From: Edison Su [mailto:edison...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:37 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> &g
> -Original Message-
> From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:19 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
> On 14.03.2014 19:14, Edison Su wrote:
> > Hi Nux,
> >
On 14.03.2014 19:14, Edison Su wrote:
Hi Nux,
Could you post security group log file on your 4.3 kvm host? The
file is @/var/log/cloudstack/agent/security_group.log
Thanks Edison, but the problem went away once I replaced that python
script with
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cl
: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
> On 13.03.2014 21:24, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> >> [Animesh] Did you see this with prior RC too?
> > [Animesh] Nux, security group support for advanced zone is limited and
> > that too was developed in 4.2. I don’t th
On 14.03.2014 14:43, Wei ZHOU wrote:
Can you try to revert commit 175549f3ab952bbd39318c16c269c16526255475
on ./scripts/vm/network/security_group.py ?
git checkout
0898a264a5463b85c4cab3033f9c3161c5ef83f8
./scripts/vm/network/security_group.py
scp to all hosts, and try again.
I got it from
On 03/14/2014 03:29 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote:
Nux and Ove,
Did you test on fresh 4.2.1 platform?
Yes, fresh 4.2.1.
/Ove
-Wei
2014-03-14 15:07 GMT+01:00 Nux! :
On 14.03.2014 13:59, Wei ZHOU wrote:
Is this similar to CLOUDSTACK-5144?
Yes, but it's only exhibited on KVM.
My colleague who i
On 14.03.2014 14:43, Wei ZHOU wrote:
Can you try to revert commit 175549f3ab952bbd39318c16c269c16526255475
on ./scripts/vm/network/security_group.py ?
git checkout
0898a264a5463b85c4cab3033f9c3161c5ef83f8
./scripts/vm/network/security_group.py
scp to all hosts, and try again.
Do you happen t
OK, then ignore my previous email. it looks no issue with security_group.py
2014-03-14 15:43 GMT+01:00 Nux! :
> On 14.03.2014 14:29, Wei ZHOU wrote:
>
>> Nux and Ove,
>>
>> Did you test on fresh 4.2.1 platform?
>>
>>
> Yes. Fresh 4.2.1 doesn't have the problem, fresh 4.3 RC8 has the problem.
>
Can you try to revert commit 175549f3ab952bbd39318c16c269c16526255475
on ./scripts/vm/network/security_group.py ?
git checkout
0898a264a5463b85c4cab3033f9c3161c5ef83f8 ./scripts/vm/network/security_group.py
scp to all hosts, and try again.
-Wei
2014-03-14 15:07 GMT+01:00 Nux! :
> On 14.03.2014
On 14.03.2014 14:29, Wei ZHOU wrote:
Nux and Ove,
Did you test on fresh 4.2.1 platform?
Yes. Fresh 4.2.1 doesn't have the problem, fresh 4.3 RC8 has the
problem.
HTH
Lucian
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
Nux and Ove,
Did you test on fresh 4.2.1 platform?
-Wei
2014-03-14 15:07 GMT+01:00 Nux! :
> On 14.03.2014 13:59, Wei ZHOU wrote:
>
>> Is this similar to CLOUDSTACK-5144?
>>
>
> Yes, but it's only exhibited on KVM.
> My colleague who is testing 4.3 with Xenserver is reporting the SG rules
> wor
On 14.03.2014 13:59, Wei ZHOU wrote:
Is this similar to CLOUDSTACK-5144?
Yes, but it's only exhibited on KVM.
My colleague who is testing 4.3 with Xenserver is reporting the SG
rules work as expected (though ipset update still requires VM
stop/start).
Lucian
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant
On 13.03.2014 18:58, Nux! wrote:
On 13.03.2014 00:26, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.3.0 release, with the following artifacts up for a
vote:
-1
In Adv SG zone assigning secondary IPs to a NIC doesn't update the
ipset accordingly on the agent/hv; it requires stopping/sta
Is this similar to CLOUDSTACK-5144?
2014-03-14 14:57 GMT+01:00 Wei ZHOU :
> Did you test on fresh 4.2.1, or upgraded platform?
>
>
Did you test on fresh 4.2.1, or upgraded platform?
2014-03-14 14:51 GMT+01:00 Ove Ewerlid :
> It should be noted that my tests use a single IP per VM.
> I believe NUX mentioned using multiple IP's.
> When SG in advanced zone is enabled, only one NIC can be assigned per VM.
> /Ove
>
>
> On 03/14/
It should be noted that my tests use a single IP per VM.
I believe NUX mentioned using multiple IP's.
When SG in advanced zone is enabled, only one NIC can be assigned per VM.
/Ove
On 03/14/2014 02:41 PM, Ove Ewerlid wrote:
On 03/14/2014 01:57 PM, Nux! wrote:
On 14.03.2014 12:06, Nux! wrote:
I
-1 given the regression in Security Groups for advanced zones.
I was able to duplicate NUX reported issues, e.g., works in ACS421 but
does not work at all in ACS43.
/Ove
On 03/13/2014 01:26 AM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.3.0 release, with the following artifacts up
On 03/14/2014 01:57 PM, Nux! wrote:
On 14.03.2014 12:06, Nux! wrote:
It looks like the traffic doesn't go in the right chains, all traffic
is accepted as FORWARD is set to ACCEPT.
There are zero packets going through BF-breth0-109.
Here's outputs from:
iptables-save: http://paste.fedoraproject.
On 14.03.2014 12:06, Nux! wrote:
It looks like the traffic doesn't go in the right chains, all traffic
is accepted as FORWARD is set to ACCEPT.
There are zero packets going through BF-breth0-109.
Here's outputs from:
iptables-save: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/85337/47982321/raw/
ebatables-sav
On 13.03.2014 21:24, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
[Animesh] Did you see this with prior RC too?
[Animesh] Nux, security group support for advanced zone is limited
and that too was developed in 4.2. I don’t think any changes have been
made to that support since then. Can you call out what specific i
On 13.03.2014 21:24, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
[Animesh] Did you see this with prior RC too?
[Animesh] Nux, security group support for advanced zone is limited
and that too was developed in 4.2. I don’t think any changes have been
made to that support since then. Can you call out what specific i
> -Original Message-
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:25 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
>
>
> > -Original Message
> -Original Message-
> From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:41 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
>
> On 13.03.2014 18:58, Nux! wrote:
> > On 13.03.2014 00:2
On 13.03.2014 18:58, Nux! wrote:
On 13.03.2014 00:26, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.3.0 release, with the following artifacts up for a
vote:
-1
In Adv SG zone assigning secondary IPs to a NIC doesn't update the
ipset accordingly on the agent/hv; it requires stopping/sta
On 13.03.2014 00:26, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.3.0 release, with the following artifacts up for a
vote:
-1
In Adv SG zone assigning secondary IPs to a NIC doesn't update the
ipset accordingly on the agent/hv; it requires stopping/starting the VM.
It's not a traged
this round. I am considering it not changed from previous RCs.
+1 (binding)
-Original Message-
From: Wilder Rodrigues [mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com]
Sent: donderdag 13 maart 2014 5:08
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
H
the Load Balancer on port 80
- Passed
Cheers,
Wilder
-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:dhoogl...@schubergphilis.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 2:03 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Are you guys +1'ing Wi
ssage-
From: Madan Ganesh Velayudham [mailto:madangan...@me.com]
Sent: donderdag 13 maart 2014 11:49
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
+1
On 13-Mar-2014, at 4:18 pm, Guo Star wrote:
> +1
>
>
> 2014-03-13 18:27 GMT+08:00
ate Domain
>> - Passed
>>
>> * Create User
>> - Passed
>>
>> * Log in
>> - Passed
>>
>> * Create VM and Network
>> - Passed
>>
>> * Add ACLs and Port forwarding
>> - Passed
>>
>> * SSH into the machine
>>
.1.1.6 (10.1.1.6)' can't be established.
> RSA key fingerprint is 02:43:6c:24:c5:79:b6:e2:c8:b7:e8:3c:8d:13:37:91.
> Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)? yes
> Warning: Permanently added '10.1.1.6' (RSA) to the list of known hosts.
> root@10.1.1.6'
tmp
usr var
%
Cheers,
Wilder
-Original Message-
From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:27 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Hi All,
I've created a 4.3.0 release, w
Hi All,
I've created a 4.3.0 release, with the following artifacts up for a
vote:
Git Branch and Commit SH:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.3
Commit: 6a6ec648099553a42f830dcd566eab2452428908
List of changes:
New Features in 4.3: https
72 matches
Mail list logo
