Github user jayapalu commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/867#issuecomment-142837601
@wido updated the patch. Deleted the log.
---
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 pr
I am working on it.
-Jayapal
> On 24-Sep-2015, at 11:52 am, Raja Pullela wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Hopefully this will be the last Blocker on the VR functionality ?
>
> Can someone please pick this bug – ASAP ?
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8905
>
>
>
> best,
>
> Raj
Hi,
I understand a concern on the VR changes was raised earlier. My apologies to
restart this thread again.
However, my last conversation with Jayapal, who has fixed/have been fixing lot
of VR issues, about the VR issues and he is pretty concerned about the
refactoring that has happened.
Github user resmo commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/829#issuecomment-142882541
@anshul1886 @koushik-das
@DaanHoogland and I had a debug session last friday, and since he is off
for the next couple of days I can give you more details about w
Github user anshul1886 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/829#issuecomment-142899514
From code it seems to be getting updated and DB also suggests that. It will
not be updated if there is no power change for
MAX_CONSECUTIVE_SAME_STATE_UPDATE_COUNT
Github user anshul1886 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/829#issuecomment-142903425
This simply means that there power_state has not changed for that period of
time. As I pointed out in my previous comment that if state is consecutively
updated w
Github user resmo commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/829#issuecomment-142901959
Increasing the grace period for a few minutes won't help. If you look at
these update_time values I queried from 10 running routers, you see these are
days, weeks behi
GitHub user jayapalu opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/881
CLOUDSTACK-8905: Fixed hooking egress rules
Added hooking the FIREWALL_EGRESS_RULES chain into FW_OUTBOUND chain.
With this egress rules will effective.
You can merge this pull request into
Github user resmo commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/829#issuecomment-142906721
This is perfectly clear to me. The problem is we are relaying on the
`update_time` (not to mix up with `power_state_update_time`).
~~~
GitHub user jayapalu opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/882
CLOUDSTACK-8881: Fixed Static and PF configuration issue
1. For static nat filter rules are not configured in VR.
2. Corrected vm ip in PF rule.
You can merge this pull request into a Git r
Github user anshul1886 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/829#issuecomment-142909650
Yes, increasing time should help.
---
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
My vote is for the approach no.1 - to backout completely. Most of VR
functionalities are broken and are in a mess to say the least. It definitely
will take some time and effort from several folks to get it to a stable state.
Ram Katru
-Original Message-
From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.
Github user resmo commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/829#issuecomment-142912573
Cloud you follow my explanations? If this would help, I must set the ping
interval to a year or somewhat identical. Are you REALLY followed my
explanations? What did I
> On Sep 24, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Ramanath Katru wrote:
>
> My vote is for the approach no.1 - to backout completely. Most of VR
> functionalities are broken and are in a mess to say the least. It definitely
> will take some time and effort from several folks to get it to a stable state.
>
So w
Raja,
A nice way out would be to have more people knowing about coding and git. I
have no idea from where you got this non-sense approach, but I would say it can
be compared with the previous git flow the community had: not tests; no PRs; no
review.
@Ramanath: you, and many others, should have
Hi,
While building cloudstack on windows, LocalTemplateDownloaderTest fails.
java.lang.AssertionError: Failed download
at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:88)
at
com.cloud.storage.template.LocalTemplateDownloaderTest.localTemplateDownloaderTest(LocalTemplateDownloaderTest.java:37
Github user bhaisaab commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/872#issuecomment-142919266
@remibergsma @karuturi VPN is sort of broken for 4.5 and below, should we
include this in 4.6 if this passes tests and review?
---
If your project is set up for it
GitHub user SudharmaJain opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/883
CLOUDSTACK-8906: /var/log/cloud/ doesn't get logrotated on xenserver
After integrating XS with CCP the following folder gets created:
/var/log/cloud/ however the logs in that are not rotate
Github user anshul1886 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/829#issuecomment-142920071
I have followed your explanation but what I am trying to say is that it may
get updated due to side effect of some other code as from my experience this
was worki
GitHub user wido opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/884
Use java.io.tmpdir instead of hardcoded /tmp
Small fix to have the tests also work on other platforms
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://githu
On 24-09-15 14:46, Sudharma Jain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While building cloudstack on windows, LocalTemplateDownloaderTest fails.
>
> java.lang.AssertionError: Failed download
> at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:88)
> at
> com.cloud.storage.template.LocalTemplateDownloaderTest.local
Github user wilderrodrigues commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/882#issuecomment-142921879
@jayapalu @karuturi
We, @remibergsma, Funs and I will test the 3 PRs which are VR related now.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user wilderrodrigues commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/881#issuecomment-142921936
@jayapalu @karuturi
We, @remibergsma, Funs and I will test the 3 PRs which are VR related now.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user wilderrodrigues commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/870#issuecomment-142922137
@jayapalu @karuturi
We, @remibergsma, Funs and I will test the 3 PRs which are VR related now.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply t
Github user wilderrodrigues commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/867#issuecomment-142922291
@jayapalu @karuturi
We, @remibergsma, Funs and I will test the 3 PRs which are VR related now.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply t
Github user wilderrodrigues commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/851#issuecomment-142922738
@jayapalu @karuturi
We, @remibergsma, Funs and I will test the 3 PRs which are VR related now.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply t
Github user wilderrodrigues commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/836#issuecomment-142922779
@jayapalu @karuturi
We, @remibergsma, Funs and I will test the 3 PRs which are VR related now.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply t
Are you serious? You consider to revert a PR that was merged over 6 months ago?
And expect it to become more stable?
The problem, in MHO, is not that we find bugs that we consider blockers. The
problem is we are unable to resolve them effectively because master is
unstable. There currently isn’
On Sep 24, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Remi Bergsma wrote:
> Are you serious? You consider to revert a PR that was merged over 6 months
> ago? And expect it to become more stable?
>
I have not followed all the latest development, but if we are talking about the
VR refactoring, indeed it happened sever
Github user borisroman commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/884#issuecomment-142934797
LGTM -> Unit test works as expected.
---
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 proje
Github user pdube commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/884#issuecomment-142936013
LGTM
---
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
Github user resmo commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/829#issuecomment-142940617
So I made a new PR #885 as a replacement for new discussion how this issue
can be solved.
IMHO this PR can be closed
---
If your project is set up for it, yo
Github user resmo commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/885#issuecomment-142941464
/cc @DaanHoogland @koushik-das @anshul1886
---
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 proj
GitHub user resmo opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/885
CLOUDSTACK-8848: ensure power state is up to date when handling missiâ¦
â¦ng VMs in powerReport
There 2 things which has been changed.
* We look on power_state_update_time inst
Github user resmo commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/884#issuecomment-142945491
LGTM
---
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
@resmo I will find some time tomorrow to test this. Can you add steps to
test please? Or are they already available on the other pr?
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 19:39 PM, resmo wrote:
Github user resmo commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/885#issuecomment-14
Github user resmo commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/885#issuecomment-142950081
It is actually not easy to test because you must hit a race condition.
What I do is on vCenter make a few migrations of a VR to another hosts and
look on the
@wilder, Not sure why you would think it as a nonsense approach? sure, you
realize amount of code churn and blockers we are dealing with when 4.6 is ready
to go out.
Agreed, the refactoring happened several months ago and we could have taken a
closer look then- the recent blockers filed have
Everything else aside, do we really think that this could be backed
out cleanly? The initial merge should be easy to pull out, but 6
months of follow on work? There's no way that's coming out cleanly.
--David
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Raja Pullela wrote:
> @wilder, Not sure why you would
Raja,
Do you actually know the amount of blockers we have and how many are VR
related? Because I have seen emails from Rajani around concerning the blockers
and I don’t see many. So, yes, I really do think your approach is non-sense.
I mentioned it before, about 1 week ago, but I think you just
this is very disrespectful... Sorry to say that you don't understand the
complexity and impact of this.. Let's not discuss this over an email and agree
to disagree with each other... move on!
> On Sep 24, 2015, at 10:20 PM, Wilder Rodrigues
> wrote:
>
> Raja,
>
> Do you actually know the a
BVT report 09/23
simulator basic - 30% , earlier runs had 100% pass rate, failures need to be
analyzed
Simulator adv - 50%, earlier runs had 100% pass rate, failures need to be
analyzed
XS basic - 95.3%
XS Adv - 93.6%
XS eip - 86.7%
KVM basic - 89.4%
KVM Adv - Deployment issue, need to check
GitHub user borisroman opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/886
[FUTURE]CLOUDSTACK-8907: POD Gateway optional
A gateway might not always be available. For instance, when the management
network is an isolated network without internet access or inter domain
> On Sep 24, 2015, at 9:08 PM, Raja Pullela wrote:
>
> BVT report 09/23
>
> simulator basic - 30% , earlier runs had 100% pass rate, failures need to be
> analyzed
What’s earlier ? yesterday, last week, six months ago ?
> Simulator adv - 50%, earlier runs had 100% pass rate, failures need t
Hi all,
We have spent some extra time to test the current master in conjunction with 7
PRs that should be fixing some PF/FW/VR problems.
There are still issues with the VPC VR when we try to stop/start the router of
a VPC which contains tiers/VMs. In that case, 2 of 8 tests failed. Concerning
Github user nitin-maharana commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/775#issuecomment-143041644
Hi. Here we have to access the database to see the behaviour of replace
function. Because the replace function is evaluated in database server side.
But in un
Thinking about being disrespectful when one doesn’t read the emails, or does
but filters parts of the message, and keeps storming about unclear things.
Yes, time to move on. We have to get a cloud running.
Cheers,
Wilder
> On 24 Sep 2015, at 20:29, Raja Pullela wrote:
>
> this is very disresp
Folks,
Let’s take a deep breath here, everyone is aiming for a good release.
With 4.6 we are trying a new way of creating the release, it may not be the
best, but I think we need to stick with the current process and release.
We can then have a post-mortem and see what worked and what did not w
Folks,
Being so close to a release, master needs to be frozen and only RMs can make
commits.
It seems that we relaxed this policy a bit in the last weeks and this is now
causing us grief.
@Remi, @rajani, you should totally revert commits that are made by other people
than you two.
You are bu
GitHub user remibergsma opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/887
[BLOCKER] Combined PRs that fix VR issues
Tonight I worked with @wilderrodrigues to figure out what is wrong with the
virtual router. As we couldn't test single PRs any more (because of othe
Please see inline comments..
> On Sep 25, 2015, at 1:47 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 9:08 PM, Raja Pullela wrote:
>>
>> BVT report 09/23
>>
>> simulator basic - 30% , earlier runs had 100% pass rate, failures need to be
>> analyzed
>
> What’s earlier ? yesterday
> On Sep 25, 2015, at 3:25 AM, Raja Pullela wrote:
>
> Please see inline comments..
>
>> On Sep 25, 2015, at 1:47 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 9:08 PM, Raja Pullela wrote:
>>>
>>> BVT report 09/23
>>>
>>> simulator basic - 30% , earlier runs had 100% pass ra
Github user runseb commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/887#issuecomment-143140589
@jayapalu @SudharmaJain can you check this asap, as it merges all your past
PRs in one and rebases with master. thanks
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
> On Sep 25, 2015, at 8:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 25, 2015, at 3:25 AM, Raja Pullela wrote:
>>
>> Please see inline comments..
>>
>>> On Sep 25, 2015, at 1:47 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Sep 24, 2015, at 9:08 PM, Raja Pullela wrote:
BVT r
54 matches
Mail list logo
