Github user remibergsma commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1383#issuecomment-179703106
Test results, tested together with #1386:
```
nosetests --with-marvin --marvin-config=${marvinCfg} -s -a
tags=advanced,required_hardware=true \
Github user remibergsma commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1386#issuecomment-179703172
Test results, tested together with #1383:
```
nosetests --with-marvin --marvin-config=${marvinCfg} -s -a
tags=advanced,required_hardware=true \
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1383
---
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 so, or if the feature is
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1386
---
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 so, or if the feature is
Github user remibergsma commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1400#issuecomment-179708000
The integration tests succeed and this results in a massive speed
improvement for ACL rules. We've tested it with 500 and 1000 and it's like
50-60 times faster.
GitHub user shwetaag opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1401
automated 9277 9276 9275 9274 9273 9179 9178 9177
automated these 8 test bugs 9277 9276 9275 9274 9273 9179 9178 9177
1. - Test to verify Scale CentOS7 VM does not fails with error "C
Github user shwetaag commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1401#issuecomment-179712919
copy pasting results of each test cases
@desc:Incorrect guest os mapping in vmware for Rhel7 ... === TestName:
test3_attach_ISO_in_RHEL7OSVM | Status : SUCCESS
Github user remibergsma commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1401#discussion_r51845671
--- Diff: tools/marvin/marvin/config/test_data.py ---
@@ -781,6 +781,15 @@
"ostype": "CentOS 5.6 (64-bit)"
},
+"co
Github user bhaisaab commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1398#issuecomment-179724866
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
ena
Github user remibergsma commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1401#discussion_r51846029
--- Diff: tools/marvin/marvin/config/test_data.py ---
@@ -790,6 +799,26 @@
"format": "OVA",
"ispublic": "true"
},
Github user shwetaag commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1401#discussion_r51846084
--- Diff: tools/marvin/marvin/config/test_data.py ---
@@ -781,6 +781,15 @@
"ostype": "CentOS 5.6 (64-bit)"
},
+"coreo
Github user remibergsma commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1371#discussion_r51846623
--- Diff: setup/db/db/schema-471to480.sql ---
@@ -27,3 +27,10 @@ ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`image_store` MODIFY COLUMN `url`
varchar(2048);
ALTER TABL
Github user shwetaag commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1401#discussion_r51847088
--- Diff: tools/marvin/marvin/config/test_data.py ---
@@ -790,6 +799,26 @@
"format": "OVA",
"ispublic": "true"
},
Github user wido commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1397#issuecomment-179742046
You also change Java code at the same time. Shouldn't this PR ONLY upgrade
maven. Nothing more?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and
Guys,
this would work, yes, as Igor also mentioned, the only thing I'm concerned
(but will need to test in on dev enviroment) is if NFS share that is
already mounted on KVM hosts, will be gratefully remounted and not
stuck/stale when I move IP from one NFS box to another...
Anyone has experience
Github user DaanHoogland commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1397#issuecomment-179751806
@wido not all updates are backwards compatible, I included the simpler
changes for some.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and
Github user sanju1010 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1011#discussion_r51857784
--- Diff: tools/marvin/marvin/config/test_data.py ---
@@ -784,6 +784,19 @@
"format": "OVA",
"ispublic": "true"
},
Github user sanju1010 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1011#discussion_r51857735
--- Diff: test/integration/component/test_coreos.py ---
@@ -0,0 +1,291 @@
+# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+# or mo
Github user shwetaag commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1011#discussion_r51857877
--- Diff: test/integration/component/test_coreos.py ---
@@ -0,0 +1,291 @@
+# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+# or mor
Github user agneya2001 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1371#discussion_r51858432
--- Diff: setup/db/db/schema-471to480.sql ---
@@ -27,3 +27,10 @@ ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`image_store` MODIFY COLUMN `url`
varchar(2048);
ALTER TABLE
Hi Andrija,
If you add to the export of both the old and the new server the option ‘fsid=0’
(or any other id), then you can change the mount to another server without
issues and the OPS recognises this as the same mount. Otherwise, in my
experience, it will not work and result in stale NFS hand
Github user wido commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1397#issuecomment-179847902
Ok, @DaanHoogland I understand.
Tests seem to fail though. Is that legit?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
repl
Github user DaanHoogland commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1400#discussion_r51873540
--- Diff: systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/cs_iptables_save.py
---
@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
+#!/usr/bin/python
--- End diff --
Github user DaanHoogland commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1400#issuecomment-179848875
skimmed the code, looks good. I have some questions that might be answerred
by a generic description of how this will improve performance. Could you add
that @
Github user DaanHoogland commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1397#issuecomment-179850018
The travis tests, huh? haven't looked at those in a long time as these were
failing always. Jenkins builds and the real test needed is integration tests.
---
Thanks Remi! I will give this a try.
Cheers
On 4 February 2016 at 12:46, Remi Bergsma
wrote:
> Hi Andrija,
>
> If you add to the export of both the old and the new server the option
> ‘fsid=0’ (or any other id), then you can change the mount to another server
> without issues and the OPS recogn
John,
Can CS community decide that? From my point of view this is OS
distribution owner who does. OpenSSL is system package and you probably
can't skip it, unless you create your own Linux distribution.
Vadim.
On 2016-02-03 17:48, John Kinsella wrote:
Folks - another OpenSSL vulnerabili
Github user swill commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1331#issuecomment-179964783
Should Jenkins and CI checks be succeeding or is it because the tests do
not have access to a Swift instance to test and succeed?
The code looks good to me.
Design Spec:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/StorageSnapshot++API
Jira Ticket
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9278
Hi All,
We plan to propose a new set of APIs to do snapshots on managed storage
backends like SolidFire. Snapshots on current managed stor
I explicitly linked the Design Spec in the Jira ticket because it was not
clear in the 'mention' section because it shows as a page 'you do not have
permission to'.
*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer
*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w cloudops.com
Thanks Will!!!
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Will Stevens wrote:
> I explicitly linked the Design Spec in the Jira ticket because it was not
> clear in the 'mention' section because it shows as a page 'you do not have
> permission to'.
>
> *Will STEVENS*
> Lead Developer
>
> *CloudOps* *| *Clo
Will you be able to create a Template from a StorageSnapshot? If yes, will
the template be stored in the secondary storage like normal templates or
will that be handled somehow on the vendor side?
*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer
*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Q
Right now we don't plan to create templates from this functionality mainly
because you can achieve the same effect using the standard Volume Snapshots
API. Since the template would always reside on the secondary storage, it
doesn't really make sense to use the backed cloning if a copy to secondary
Hi everyone,
Whatever we do here, we need to have a plan to deal with the fact that we
already have a feature (in 4.6 and later) that allows you to use the
existing volume-snapshot APIs to create a volume snapshot (for managed
storage) that resides on a backend SAN (using a custom snapshot strateg
So if I understand correctly, currently taking a Volume Snapshots of a
volume on a managed storage keeps it on the storage array. As a part of
this feature, we can make sure that Volume Snapshots on managed storage are
uploaded to the secondary storage. This would make the Volume Snapshot
feature b
I'm not really sure about the upgrade path however, customers who are using
4.6 and are on a managed storage would no longer have the same
functionality with Volume Snapshots.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Syed Mushtaq
wrote:
> So if I understand correctly, currently taking a Volume Snapshots
Right...I think we will need to come up with a viable upgrade path or some
reasonable way for them to move from the old way to the new way (and some
obvious way that they will know they need to do this).
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Syed Mushtaq
wrote:
> I'm not really sure about the upgrade
Thanks Syed, that is much clearer now. :)
*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer
*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Syed Mushtaq
wrote:
> Right now we don't plan to create templates fro
So, this is just me thinking out load here, but if a given CloudStack cloud
doesn't actually need to provide both the ability to take a SAN snapshot
and export it to NFS (if just taking a SAN snapshot is OK), then we might
be able to get away with no new API calls and simply implement a new custom
Is it possible to have both functionalities (snapshot on SAN & Sec Storage)
coexist? Because Ideally, we would like to have both.
For example, some of our customers want to implement their own backup
strategies and do encryption to their backups which is a perfect
use case for Storage Snapshot whil
Hi,
Just to make sure I understand all the requirements here:
1) This relates only to managed storage (1:1 mapping between a virtual disk
and a backend SAN volume).
2) We want to take the current (introduced in 4.6) functionality, which
creates a snapshot on the SAN, and extend it via a config o
You are correct Mike in terms of the requirements. One of our earlier
iterations on this was to have an argument to the create snapshot API which
decides whether to backup the volume to sec storage but we realized it
would make management of snapshots quite messy so we proposed a new api
instead.
I think that all sounds reasonable then - thanks!
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Syed Mushtaq
wrote:
> You are correct Mike in terms of the requirements. One of our earlier
> iterations on this was to have an argument to the create snapshot API which
> decides whether to backup the volume to se
Did the announcements for 4.7/4.8 go out? I don’t see them on the mailing lists
or elsewhere?
> On Dec 17, 2015, at 8:37 AM, Remi Bergsma wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> After 72 hours, the vote for CloudStack 4.7.0 [1] *passes* with 5 PMC + 1
> non-PMC votes.
>
> +1 (PMC / binding)
> * Wilder
> * Wi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
CVE-2015-3252: Apache CloudStack VNC authentication issue
CVSS v2:
4.3 (AV:N/AC:H/Au:M/C:P/I:P/A:P)
Vendors:
The Apache Software Foundation
Citrix, Inc.
Versions Afffected:
Apache CloudStack 4.4.4, 4.5.1
Description:
Apache CloudStack sets a VNC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
CVE-2015-3251: Apache CloudStack VM Credential Exposure
CVSS v2:
6.0 (AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P)
Vendors:
The Apache Software Foundation
Citrix, Inc.
Versions Afffected:
Apache CloudStack 4.4.4, 4.5.1
Description:
Apache CloudStack provides an A
Folks - I just sent out 2 security advisories that should have been sent out
several months ago - luckily the ASF security team was aware of them and
prodded the ACS security team as to what was up. Earlier today I realized the
announcements hadn’t gone out, so they were just sent.
I just put u
47 matches
Mail list logo
