RE: Marketing page update

2018-10-11 Thread Paul Angus
Guys, I believe the asf-site branch is the one that actually gets built on apache.org (I lost a couple of hours of my life that I wont get back figuring that out a while ago). Kind regards, Paul Angus paul.an...@shapeblue.com  www.shapeblue.com Amadeus House, Floral Street, London WC2E 9DPU

Re: Marketing page update

2018-10-11 Thread Rafael Weingärtner
Yes it is. However, we version the source files in the "master" branch. Then, the "compiled" files should go only in the "asf-site" branch. There is a step by step in the README explaining the process. On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:14 AM Paul Angus wrote: > Guys, I believe the asf-site branch is the

Broken volume migration logic?

2018-10-11 Thread Andrei Mikhailovsky
Hello, I have recently tried to migrate a volume from one rbd storage pool to another. Have noticed a possible issue with the migration logic, which I was hoping to discuss with you. My setup: ACS 4.11.1.0 Ceph + rbd for two primary storage pools (hdd and ssd pools) Storage tags are used to

Re: Broken volume migration logic?

2018-10-11 Thread Rafael Weingärtner
What you described seems to be the new feature introduced with https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-10323 and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-10240. However, this feature should have been introduced only in master (4.12). I was not able to find those commits in 4.11.1.0

Re: Broken volume migration logic?

2018-10-11 Thread Andrija Panic
HI Rafael, Andrei, that sounds wonderful ! @Andrei , we had exactly the same situation, but we have done internal code changes in ACS 4.5 /4.8 (never committed back to community unfortunately... ), so after migration is done, and we want to change offering, the list of Offerings is NOT matching t

Re: Broken volume migration logic?

2018-10-11 Thread Andrei Mikhailovsky
Thanks for your input and the explanations, gents. This is not really a big issue for me as we have a small scale environment that doesn't require volume disk migration. And frankly speaking, the disk migration using the manual method works far quicker than using the gui way where the disk is p

[GitHub] nvazquez commented on issue #8: Add improvements on DPDK documentation

2018-10-11 Thread GitBox
nvazquez commented on issue #8: Add improvements on DPDK documentation URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/pull/8#issuecomment-428978964 Thanks for your reviews! @DennisKonrad I have added more documentation on this PR on the latest commit ---

[GitHub] rafaelweingartner commented on issue #8: Add improvements on DPDK documentation

2018-10-11 Thread GitBox
rafaelweingartner commented on issue #8: Add improvements on DPDK documentation URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/pull/8#issuecomment-428980945 @nvazquez and @DennisKonrad can we merge? Or, maybe you guys would like some more time to review and improve things ---

[GitHub] DennisKonrad commented on issue #8: Add improvements on DPDK documentation

2018-10-11 Thread GitBox
DennisKonrad commented on issue #8: Add improvements on DPDK documentation URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/pull/8#issuecomment-428988843 @rafaelweingartner I read through it and at least for me it's clear now how one can configure VMs using DPDK LGTM ---

Re: Broken volume migration logic?

2018-10-11 Thread Andrija Panic
Are you aware of the online storage migration in 4.11.x ? :) Imagine migrating few hundreds volumes to another storage, like we did :) Yet to be improved to support ceph/nfs to nfs/ceph - for now, afaik, it supports from non-managed to managed and vice versa Cheers On Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 16

Re: Broken volume migration logic?

2018-10-11 Thread Rafael Weingärtner
> > I might be able to provide code that did this new way of matching tags, in > case it would be interesting (but no human power to commit anything/PR, I > can just share with Rafael or someone who is willing to push it upstream) > Rafael ? > I think that what you described is exactly what I impl

[DISCUSS] Increase default RAM for virtual routers to 512MB?

2018-10-11 Thread Rohit Yadav
All, With 4.11, we migrated to a 64-bit Debian 9 based systemvmtemplate. Debian 9 (amd64)'s recommended RAM requirement is 512 MB [1], while the default system offering for VRs is set to 256MB RAM and 1 CPU/core. For most environments, especially those in KVM and XenServer this does not presen

Re: [DISCUSS] Increase default RAM for virtual routers to 512MB?

2018-10-11 Thread Wei ZHOU
It would be better to make router offering configurable in global settings. Rohit Yadav 于2018年10月11日周四 下午7:09写道: > All, > > > With 4.11, we migrated to a 64-bit Debian 9 based systemvmtemplate. Debian > 9 (amd64)'s recommended RAM requirement is 512 MB [1], while the default > system offering

Re: [DISCUSS] Increase default RAM for virtual routers to 512MB?

2018-10-11 Thread Rafael Weingärtner
+1 for Wei suggestion On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 3:58 PM Wei ZHOU wrote: > It would be better to make router offering configurable in global settings. > > > > Rohit Yadav 于2018年10月11日周四 下午7:09写道: > > > All, > > > > > > With 4.11, we migrated to a 64-bit Debian 9 based systemvmtemplate. > Debian >

Re: Using ConfigDrive in a shared network

2018-10-11 Thread Rohit Yadav
Create a new network offering or use the default one with config drive. While creating a new one you would select user data provided by config drive and also select config drive feature. Try the latest 4.11 or master via UI. Regards. From: Wido den Hollander Sen