Re: [PROPOSAL] Storage Subsystem API Interface Additions

. Second, it helps to prevent the pollution of the orchestration layer's domain model with vendor specific concepts. Thanks, -John On Sep 19, 2013, at 12:32 AM, Mike Tutkowski wrote: > We might want to bring John Burwell into this discussion as he has documented > ideas on how stor

Re: [DISCUSS/PROPOSAL] Upgrading Driver Model

ecture is a long journey > which we are still striving to get there, Daren's work will again bring us > one step closer, I think this incremental refactoring approach can help > reduce the turbulence during the flight and ensure smoother releases along > the way. > > k

Re: Review Request 14522: [CLOUDSTACK-4771] Support Revert VM Disk from Snapshot

o == null) { throw new CloudRuntimException(/* Appropriate error message */ ); } snapshotResponse.setCanRevert(secondaryInfo.canRevert); - John Burwell On Oct. 14, 2013, 6:50 p.m., Chris Suich wrote: > > --- > Th

Re: Review Request 14522: [CLOUDSTACK-4771] Support Revert VM Disk from Snapshot

> On Oct. 15, 2013, 10:41 a.m., John Burwell wrote: > > engine/api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/engine/subsystem/api/storage/PrimaryDataStoreDriver.java, > > line 28 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/14522/diff/2/?file=364638#file364638line28> > > > > I

Re: Review Request 14522: [CLOUDSTACK-4771] Support Revert VM Disk from Snapshot

> On Oct. 15, 2013, 10:41 a.m., John Burwell wrote: > > engine/api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/engine/subsystem/api/storage/PrimaryDataStoreDriver.java, > > line 28 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/14522/diff/2/?file=364638#file364638line28> > > > > I

Re: Review Request 14522: [CLOUDSTACK-4771] Support Revert VM Disk from Snapshot

ll a corrupted snapshot failure be surfaced to the user? - John Burwell On Oct. 16, 2013, 10:50 a.m., Chris Suich wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >

Re: Review Request 14522: [CLOUDSTACK-4771] Support Revert VM Disk from Snapshot

issues that need to be addressed separately. - John Burwell On Oct. 16, 2013, 10:50 a.m., Chris Suich wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache

Re: Review Request 14522: [CLOUDSTACK-4771] Support Revert VM Disk from Snapshot

> On Oct. 17, 2013, 11:18 a.m., John Burwell wrote: > > ui/scripts/storage.js, line 1963 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/14522/diff/3/?file=365104#file365104line1963> > > > > How will a corrupted snapshot failure be surfaced to the user? > > Chris Su

Re: Snapshot Strategy Review

t; Chris Suich >> chris.su...@netapp.com >> NetApp Software Engineer >> Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions >> Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat >> >> On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:02 PM, John Burwell wrote: >> >>> Chris, >>> >>> I saw

Re: Review Request 14522: [CLOUDSTACK-4771] Support Revert VM Disk from Snapshot

, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14522/ Review request for cloudstack, Brian Federle, edison su, John Burwell, and Mike Tutkowski. By Chris Suich. *Updated Oct. 17, 2013, 6:46 p.m.* Changes -Added context to the error messages for not finding DataMotionStrategies. However, it appears that t

Re: Review Request 14522: [CLOUDSTACK-4771] Support Revert VM Disk from Snapshot

Revertable()); // The rest of the method ... - John Burwell On Oct. 17, 2013, 2:46 p.m., Chris Suich wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To

Re: Review Request 14522: [CLOUDSTACK-4771] Support Revert VM Disk from Snapshot

/DataMotionServiceImpl.java <https://reviews.apache.org/r/14522/#comment53131> Missed that part. Convert to a proper for each loop: for (final VolumeInfo aVolumeInfo : volumeMap.keySet().iterator()) { volumeIds.add(aVolumeInfo.getUuid()); } - John Burwell On O

Re: Review Request 14522: [CLOUDSTACK-4771] Support Revert VM Disk from Snapshot

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14522/#review27302 --- Ship it! Ship It! - John Burwell On Oct. 22, 2013, 10:48 a.m

Re: Review Request 14522: [CLOUDSTACK-4771] Support Revert VM Disk from Snapshot

, and re-generate the patch. - John Burwell On Oct. 22, 2013, 10:48 a.m., Chris Suich wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache

Re: Review Request 14522: [CLOUDSTACK-4771] Support Revert VM Disk from Snapshot

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14522/#review27333 --- Please rebase and provide a squashed patch. - John Burwell On

Re: Review Request 14522: [CLOUDSTACK-4771] Support Revert VM Disk from Snapshot

merge history clean. - John Burwell On Oct. 22, 2013, 5:37 p.m., Chris Suich wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache

Re: ACS + Riak-CS, works?

Darren, Since S3/Riak CS can receive the contents of a file out of order and re-assemble upon completion of transfer of all parts, the underlying driver uses the TransferManager which automatically breaks files up into multi-part uploads to increase parallelism to decrease the time required to

Re: ACS + Riak-CS, works?

Darren, Your are receiving a 403 which indicates that the ACLs/user is not properly configured. Which version of Riak CS are you using? Can you send your app.config and vm.args for Riak and Riak CS? Personally, I use the vagrant-riak-cs-cluster [1] project to build local instances for develo

Re: ACS + Riak-CS, works?

through your s3xen plugin, where S3 > single part upload API is used. If customer is using RiakCS as their S3 > object store, can they still backup snapshot larger than 5GB? Based on your > comments, it seems that they should be able to? > > Thanks > -min > > F

Re: ACS + Riak-CS, works?

cs/latest/tutorials/quick-start-riak-cs/ > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:48 AM, John Burwell wrote: > Darren, > > Your are receiving a 403 which indicates that the ACLs/user is not properly > configured. Which version of Riak CS are you using? Can you send your > app.confi

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

David and Edison, I plan to review the branch, but due to a personal emergency, I won't have a my feedback until COB, Monday. Thanks, -John On May 17, 2013, at 8:19 AM, David Nalley wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Edison Su wrote: >> Hi all, >> Min and I worked on object_store

Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

Chip, In addition to this issue, we still do not have a resolution for the system VM clock drift on Xen (CLOUDSTACK-2492 [1]). Thanks, -John [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2492 On May 20, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:50PM -0400

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

All, Since this change is so large, it makes reviewing and commenting in detail extremely difficult. Would it be possible to push this patch through Review Board to ease comprehension and promote a conversation about this patch? Reading through the FS, I have the following questions regarding

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

All, While it is tough to do, I must cast a -1 for the following reasons: Given that system VMs write files, this defect makes every file created/modified timestamp unreliable. Operational log correlation/debugging is nearly impossible since the clock is out of sync. It renders S3-backed Second

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

haven't looked in the history to see if this strategy was previously employed. Thanks, -John On May 20, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On May 20, 2013, at 7:14 PM, John Burwell wrote: > >> All, >> >> While it is tough to do, I must cast a -1 for the followi

Re: [DISCUSS] Should we pause merges into master until 4.1 is out the door?

Prasanna, It seems to me our largest concern is that the impending 4.2 code freeze will create a priority conflict between stabilizing 4.1 and completing 4.2 features (including reviews). Would it be acceptable to push back the 4.2 until say two weeks after the first 4.1 RC ships? With this t

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

m] >> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:30 PM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Subject: RE: [MERGE]object_store branch into master >> >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] >>> Sent: Monday

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

David, I am willing to do the work. However, as I understand the circumstances, a complete build process for the system VMs has not been released. If I am incorrect in my understanding, I will do the work necessary to fix the problem. Thanks, -John On May 21, 2013, at 5:29 PM, David Nalley

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

inning to rely on it. I do agree >> though that it could perhaps be rolled into the newer system vm, as an >> option for people to use at their own risk. >> >> Of course, if someone wants to patch it up and get testing going, I'm >> all for that as well. I just don

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

provide ipv6 preview with instructions >> to use the 4.2 template. >> On May 21, 2013 5:09 PM, "John Burwell" wrote: >> >>> Chiradeep, >>> >>> Is it possible to "back port" the 4.2 system VMs to 4.1? What would be >>> invo

Re: [DISCUSS] Should we pause merges into master until 4.1 is out the door?

Chiradeep, This defect affects 100% of users that use system VMs which I believe is all of them. It also appears that we have a fix for this problem that needs to be pulled back from 4.2 and tested. What is involved with testing it? Personally, I would be please if we found more blockers before

Re: [DISCUSS] Should we pause merges into master until 4.1 is out the door?

gt; sync issue. This has been there since 2.2.0. Are we saying that the > thousands of production Cloudstack clouds are well and truly borked and > cannot function? Nope. They work just fine. Should we fix it? Yes, but to > Dave's point, we cannot hold up this release any longer. >

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

Chirpadeep, Have clusters previous versions actually been checked for this issue or are we stating that based on code review? I can say that in testing done earlier this year that the SSVM was syncing with the host on devcloud because I would hit situations where I would hit S3 clock sync issues.

Re: [DISCUSS] Should we pause merges into master until 4.1 is out the door?

that trivial in my > opinion. > > Thanks > /Sudha > > -Original Message- > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:35 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Should we pause merges into master until 4.1

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

Marcus, For me, S3 integration and Xen feature parity are not the primary reasons that this defect should remain a blocker. Time synchronization is a basic and essential assumption for systems such as CloudStack. This defect yields file and log timestamps from secondary storage that are unrel

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

ng all of > those features out of the hands of people as well. > > For me, the fear is that we end up pushing 4.1 back to or near where > 4.2 would have been otherwise released, at which point we haven't > really accomplished anything but delayed the release of the workin

Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?

against getting on that slippery slope. I apologize for the inadvertent hyperbole, -John On May 22, 2013, at 12:11 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013, at 10:51 AM, John Burwell wrote: >> I would say that the only thing for an open source project worse than not >&g

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

Animesh, I am working through it now. I will do my best to be done by Friday, but it is a massive patch to digest (25 pages in Review Board). Thanks, -John On May 22, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > >> -Original Message----- >> From: John Bur

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

Chip, +1. It is very tight to give this type patch the appropriate attention this late in the cycle. Thanks, -John On May 22, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:00:51PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: >> >> >>> -Original Mes

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

22, 2013 at 07:00:51PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:51 AM >>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: [MERGE]ob

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:08 PM >>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:00:51PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

nly invoking routines in S3Utils to perform operations > with S3, not invoke any REST api if that is what you meant. > > Thanks > -min > > On 5/22/13 2:49 PM, "John Burwell" wrote: > >> Edison, >> >> For changes that take as long as de

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

s > -min > > On 5/23/13 7:20 AM, "John Burwell" wrote: > >> Min, >> >> The com.cloud.storage.template.S3TemplateDownloader is directly accessing >> the S3 API using HTTP client. >> >> Thanks, >> John >> >> On May 22,

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

ost-merge? > > -min > > On 5/23/13 12:54 PM, "John Burwell" wrote: > >> Min, >> >> TL;DR There are rare circumstances where directly access the AWS HTTP API >> makes sense, but generally, you should use a client. >> >> If you need th

Re: Question about Review Request

Mike, I would encourage Review Board as the first preference. It provides a good medium to review code and encourage other project members to review patches, as well as, observe the review process. Thanks, -John On May 27, 2013, at 8:42 PM, Mike Tutkowski wrote: > Sounds good > > I have se

Re: Question about Review Request

might do to make Review Board work in my situation? > > I am new to Review Board and don't know why my patch file won't upload, but > does apply to a new branch in my local repo. > > Thanks! > > > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:24 PM, John Burwell wrote: > >&g

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

d, May 22, 2013 at 08:15:41PM +, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -Original Message- >>>>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CloudStack 4.1.0 (fifth round)

-0. I don't believe we should be shipping a release with known clock sync issues (see CLOUDSTACK-2492). Since the community voted to go forward, I will not cast a -1. However, I feel it is important to highlight operational issues that, in

[PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

All, Since we have taken an eight (8) week delay completing the 4.1.0 release, I would like propose that we re-evaluate the timelines for the 4.2.0 release. When the schedule was originally conceived, it was intended that the project would have eight (8) weeks to focus exclusively on 4.2.0 dev

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

8 PM, Sebastien Goasguen >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 30 May 2013, at 06:34, Chip Childers >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On May 29, 2013, at 7:59 PM, John Burwell wrote: >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

David and Chip, To be clear about my proposal, I did not intend to propose that we push back the feature freeze by x days of time and subtract x days from testing. My intention is to add those days into the cycle without reducing the test window -- pushing the release date out x days. Anoth

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

che.org >> Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master >> >> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:42:49PM +, Edison Su wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] >>&g

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

Marcus, I think it best to defer the larger release cycle length question to another time and place. As Chip stated earlier, the consensus is to maintain the current freeze date. Given the time sensitivity, my proposal can be considered resolved. Thanks, -John On May 30, 2013, at 11:34 AM,

Re: [DISCUSS] How to best do time sync. (WAS: [VOTE] Release Apache CloudStack 4.1.0 (fifth round))

;-) >> >> -chip >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 06:24:27PM +0000, Musayev, Ilya wrote: >>> John, >>> >>> I clearly see your concern, please review my response under CLOUDSTACK- >> 2492. >>> >>> Thanks >>> ilya >>>

Re: [DISCUSS] How to best do time sync. (WAS: [VOTE] Release Apache CloudStack 4.1.0 (fifth round))

ased sync > or local/external NTP servers. > > I'm all for local/external NTP servers, as I know how those never gave me > issues in past (especially when you go through hypervisors upgrades and vm > tools upgrades). > > > > > -Original Message- > >

Re: [DISCUSS] How to best do time sync. (WAS: [VOTE] Release Apache CloudStack 4.1.0 (fifth round))

If timesync=ntp, get values of ntpserver1 and ntpserver2, configure >> local ntp.conf file to use with native linux ntpd daemon >>If timesync=tools, use vm tools provided time keeping technique >> >> Feedback is welcome, >> >> Thanks >> -ilya >>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

uashing of bugs. > > > > Other developers are also waiting on merging their stuff in after the > > freeze so it will hit 4.3 > > > > I wouldn't open the window for features longer since that might bring > > more stuff into 4.2 which needs QA as well. >

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

ed that point because this merge > request contradicted our previous consensus on the appropriate timing of > architectural changes merging into master (as documented at [1]). > > -chip > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Releases#Releases-Featur

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

Wido, +1 -- this enhancement must to discretely support read and write IOPS. I don't see how it could be fixed later because I don't see how we correctly split total IOPS into read and write. Therefore, we would be stuck with a total unless/until we decided to break backwards compatibility.

Re: [PROPOSAL] Storage plug-in for 4.2

Mike/Animesh, I am happy to review. However, other $dayjob duties may prevent me from getting to it until Monday. Has the patch been pushed into Review Board? Thanks, -John On May 31, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Mike Tutkowski wrote: > Hi Animesh, > > Sure, I'd be happy to do that. > > Would you

Re: [PROPOSAL] Storage plug-in for 4.2

Mike, Excellent. Thanks, -John On May 31, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Mike Tutkowski wrote: > Hi John, > > I think this is the link you'll need: > > https://reviews.apache.org/r/11479/ > > Thanks! :) > > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:45 AM, John Burwell wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

+1 for reasons state on the previous proposal thread. On May 31, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Chip Childers wrote: > Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature freeze > date for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a clear consensus. Well... > we have already defined the "project

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze

Chip, As I understand the [VOTE] extension email, the code freeze is currently extended to Tuesday, 4 June 2012, regardless of the vote outcome. If my understanding is correct, then we have three more days to complete the review/feedback loop -- correct? Thanks, -John On May 31, 2013, at 11:

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

e create legacy from day #1. Wido -Wei 2013/5/31 Wido den Hollander On 05/31/2013 03:59 PM, John Burwell wrote: Wido, +1 -- this enhancement must to discretely support read and write IOPS. I don't see how it could be fixed later because I don't see how we correctly split

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

m the hypervisor side. My feature is focused on controlling IOPS from the storage system side. I hope that helps. :) On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 6:35 PM, John Burwell wrote: > Wei, > > My opinion is that no features should be merged until all functional > issues have been resolved and it

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

Edison/Chip, Please see my comments in-line. Thanks, -John On May 31, 2013, at 4:04 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > Comments inline: > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 09:42:29PM +, Edison Su wrote: >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: John Burwe

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

res. I think that disk_io_throttling will need to be merged before SolidFire, but I think we need closer coordination between the branches (possibly have have solidfire track disk_io_throttling) to coordinate on this issue. > > - Wei > > > 2013/6/3 John Burwell > >> Mike,

Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master

Chip/Min, For thread 1, I would like to see an expanded discussion regarding the need for the staging area. In particular, what features on which hypervisors created the need for it. With the wider expertise of the list, we may be able to find solutions to these issues that either reduce or e

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

ng of a VMs and volumes for calculation. Of course it is >> better >>> to tell user the exact limitation value of individual volume, and network >>> rate limitation for nics as well. I can work on it later. Do you think it >>> is a part of I/O throttling?

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

g invoked on zone-wide > storage > > (where the volume has just been created) and create, say, a storage > > repository (for XenServer) or a datastore (for VMware) to make use of the > > volume that was just created. > > > > I've been spending most of my time

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

hat supported the creation and deletion >>> of volumes dynamically. However, when I visited with him in Portland back >>> in April, we realized that it was not complete. We realized there was >>> nothing CloudStack could do with these volumes unless the attach logic was >

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

ck does that part > for you. I think this is only supported for XenServer. For all other > hypervisors, you must first go to the hypervisor and perform this step > manually. > > I don't really know what RBD is. > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:13 PM, John Burwell wrot

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

thoughts in a later response to Mike regarding the >> touch points between these two features. I think that disk_io_throttling >> will need to be merged before SolidFire, but I think we need closer >> coordination between the branches (possibly have have solidfire track >> disk_io_thrott

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

se these types of volumes have not been pre-hooked >> up to such a hypervisor data structure by an admin. Once the attach logic >> creates, say, an SR on XenServer for this volume, it attaches the one and >> only VDI within the SR to the VM in question. >> >> >>

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

may very well make sense, but I'm having a hard time >>> envisioning it. >>> >>> Perhaps we should draw Edison in on this conversation as he was the >>> initial person to suggest the approach I took. >>> >>> What do you think? >

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

I try to mean 'SAN volume'. >>> >>> To refer to the 'volume' the end user can make in CloudStack, I try to >>> use 'CloudStack volume'. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Mike Tutkowski < >>> m

Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.1.0 (fifth round)

Joe, I would like to get clock drift fixed for 4.1.1 as well. What needs to be done to test the 4.2 system VMs? How can folks assist with the testing process? Thanks, -Jojn On Jun 4, 2013, at 10:17 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013, at 12:49 AM, Prasanna Santhanam wrote: >>

Re: ACS 4.1.1 release - bugfixes to backport

Ilya, If the bugs are captured in JIRA tickets, can we add a tag to those tickets? Thanks, -John On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Musayev, Ilya wrote: > Hi All, > > Sorry I was a bit disconnected from the community - as my $dayjob kept me > very busy. > > I would like to start of this thread t

Re: [DISCUSS] NFS cache storage issue on object_store

Edison, You have provided some great information below which helps greatly to understand the role of the "NFS cache" mechanism. To summarize, this mechanism is only currently required for Xen snapshot operations driven by Xen's coalescing operations. Is my understanding correct? Just out of

Re: [DISCUSS] NFS cache storage issue on object_store

Edison, One thing I forgot to say is that reference counting be an unnecessary complexity in the event that sharing of the same resource by multiple process concurrently is rare. Thanks, -John On Jun 5, 2013, at 4:04 PM, John Burwell wrote: > Edison, > > You have provided s

Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Release Apache CloudStack 4.1.0 (fifth round)

could be included in a 4.1 minor release? Thanks, -John On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > Hi John, > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013, at 09:42 PM, John Burwell wrote: >> I would like to get clock drift fixed for 4.1.1 as well. What needs >> to be done to te

Re: [DISCUSS] NFS cache storage issue on object_store

Edison, Please my comments in-line below. Thanks, -John On Jun 5, 2013, at 6:55 PM, Edison Su wrote: > > >> -Original Message----- >> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 1:04 PM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org

Re: Object based Secondary storage.

Min, Are you calculating the MD5 or letting the Amazon client do it? Thanks, -John On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Min Chen wrote: > Thanks Tom. Indeed I have a S3 question that need some advise from some S3 > experts. To support upload object > 5G, I have used TransferManager.upload > to upload o

Re: Object based Secondary storage.

amz-request-id': '8DFF5D8025E58E99', 'cache-control': 'proxy-revalidate', > 'date': 'Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:39:47 GMT', 'content-type': 'application/xml'}, > 'reason': 'OK', 'data':

Re: Object based Secondary storage.

; >> >> DEBUG: Sending request method_string='POST', >> uri='/fixes/icecake/systdfdfdfemvm.iso1?uploadId=vdkPSAtaA7g.fdfdfdfdf..iaKRNW_8QGz.bXdfdfdfdfdfkFXwUwLzRcG5obVvJFDvnhYUFdT6fYr1rig--', >> >> DEBUG: Response: {'status': 200, 'headers': {, 's

Re: Object based Secondary storage.

On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 04:02 +, Min Chen wrote: >> John, >> We are not able to successfully download file that was uploaded to Riak CS >> with TransferManager using S3cmd. Same error as we encountered using amazon >> s3 java client due to the incompatible ETAG format

Re: KVM development, libvirt

Prasanna, What if we made passing the Jenkins tests a pre-requisite to open voting? In such a scenario, the test report from the Jenkins build would be attached to the voting email. Thanks, -John On Jun 7, 2013, at 9:09 AM, Prasanna Santhanam wrote: > On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:48:14PM -060

Re: Object based Secondary storage.

issue. As I said, it is unexpected behavior, but in discussing it, it seems like the quickest remedy is to have Riak CS emulate the quirk. -John On Jun 7, 2013, at 1:23 PM, Edison Su wrote: > > >> -Original Message----- >> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.co

Re: [DISCUSS] NFS cache storage issue on object_store

Edison, Please see my commons in-line below. Thanks, -John On Jun 6, 2013, at 6:43 PM, Edison Su wrote: > > >> -Original Message----- >> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] >> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 7:47 AM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] NFS cache storage issue on object_store

Chiradeep, Looks like I have a rookie mistake in S3-backed Secondary Storage. I will investigate, and send a patch to lock on the management server side. Thanks, -John On Jun 10, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: > >> >> From a code perspective, I think it would behove us to imple

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER (Second Round)

Wei, Have Mike Tutkowski and you reconciled the potential conflict between a throttled I/O VM and a provisioned IOPs volume? If so, what solution did you select? Thanks, -John On Jun 10, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote: > Guys, > > I would like to merge disk_io_throttling branch into mast

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER (Second Round)

the GUI > for his feature? > > Thanks! > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:56 AM, John Burwell wrote: > >> Wei, >> >> Have Mike Tutkowski and you reconciled the potential conflict between a >> throttled I/O VM and a provisioned IOPs volume? If so, wha

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER (Second Round)

Wei has added four new fields to the Disk Offering. > > I have added three (Min, Max, and Burst IOPS). > > We just need to decide if we should toggle between his and mine. > > I doubt a user would want to use both features at the same time. > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 a

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER (Second Round)

es, I think that's the way to go (only one feature >>> or the other). >>> >>> Any suggestions from a usability standpoint how we want to implement >> this? >>> It could be as simple as a radio button to turn on your feature and mine >>> o

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER (Second Round)

that could catch on. > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:29 PM, John Burwell wrote: > >> Wei, >> >> In this case, we can have the hypervisor or storage providing the quality >> of service guarantee. Naively, it seems reasonable to separate hypervisor >>

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER (Second Round)

ax (as long as Wei's feature is not in use), but not display Burst > IOPS? > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:50 PM, John Burwell wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> My concern becomes that we start ballooning the data model and user >> interface with a fields

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER (Second Round)

t; Just to make sure I understand your request, are you looking to display >> Min and Max (as long as Wei's feature is not in use), but not display Burst >> IOPS? >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:50 PM, John Burwell wrote: >> >>> Mike, >>

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER (Second Round)

#x27;s a problem. > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM, John Burwell wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> Yes. I realize my other reply did not explicitly state leaving the Min >> and Max IOPS fields in the data model as these seem to generic terms across >> storage

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

Mike, Please see my responses in-line below. Thanks, -John On Jun 10, 2013, at 11:08 PM, Mike Tutkowski wrote: > Let me make sure I follow where we're going here: > > 1) There should be NO references to hypervisor code in the storage plug-ins > code (this includes the default storage plug-in

Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER

Mike, We have a delicate merge dance to perform. The disk_io_throttling, solidfire, and object_store appear to have a number of overlapping elements. I understand the dependencies between the patches to be as follows: object_store <- solidfire -> disk_io_throttling Am I correct that

  1   2   3   4   5   >