/display/PM/Burbank
-Original Message-
From: Murali Reddy [mailto:murali.re...@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:25 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: domr iptables rules
On 10/05/12 9:00 PM, Clayton Weise cwe...@iswest.net wrote:
It's something I have been
On 01/06/12 10:46 AM, Chiradeep Vittal chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com
wrote:
A third way is to split the agent api into 2 commands: CreateVm and
StartVm.
CloudStack already has two separate agent api commands for
creating(CreateCommand) and starting (StartCommand) VM operations. Not
sure if any
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/5659/#review8749
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Murali Reddy
On June 29, 2012, 10:06 a.m
Hugo,
Thanks for submitting a detailed patch with API changes, functional test
steps etc. I maintain the Network Element modules of CloudStack will get
started on the review of the patch. I might need to pull in other module
owners of (CitrixResource, NetWorkGuru, NetworkManager) for review if
Currently CloudStack has dependencies on third party software that are under
'excluded license' [1] or does not fall under category A/B licenses. While
effort in underway [2] to remove the dependencies, I want to bring to the
discussion on what is the best approach for CloudStack to remove the
On 02/07/12 6:29 AM, Hugo Trippaers htrippa...@schubergphilis.com
wrote:
On July 2, 2012, 1:02 p.m., David Nalley wrote:
Murali, Chiradeep: You guys have been the ones working on the plugin
stuff - is this your intent that all of the plugins would be bundled in
-server?
--David
I hope
On 02/07/12 9:58 AM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote:
For instance, we removed jnetpcap altogether as we weren't using it;
do we continue with a dependency on the VMware SDK or do we instead
rip it out and replace it entirely with something else? Is Paramiko
really used or not?
--David
I can
? or works with Kvm, Vmware as well?
- Murali Reddy
On June 26, 2012, 4:56 p.m., Hugo Trippaers wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/5590
Hugo,
I reviewed the patch and its good to go into master. I will get the patch
integrated into master branch. Can you please do below tasks to conclude
phase 1 effort.
- Since there in no flexibility to tag VIF's as Nicira integration would
want, we can leave the changes you done in the
On 26/07/12 8:43 PM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Edison Su edison...@citrix.com wrote:
As kvm code depends on libvirt-java, which is incompatible with Apache
license. I want to move it to plugin folder as we already did for other
hypervisors, and add a
On 28/07/12 5:31 AM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote:
Hi folks:
I am working on removing all of the jar files under deps/ and creating
an ant target to acquire them, etc.
However, I just came across something that I wonder if there is a
reason behind.
For the target build-all it depends on a
On 07/08/12 3:35 PM, Alessandro Pilotti a...@pilotti.it wrote:
Hi guys,
we have some trouble with NFS to access the secondary storage as we are
targetting Hyper-V server which, unlike Windows Server, doesn't have a
native NFS client.
How hard do you guys think it would be to add CIFS as an
Thanks for submitting patch. I took a quick look at the patch in general
things look good. It would be better if you can give quick context on the
ADX capabilities for better deatiled review. Some question I had was does
ADX has a virtual appliance? NAT capabilities? Also where do you want to
On 09/08/12 5:01 AM, Krishna Sadasivam ksada...@brocade.com wrote:
plugins/network-elements/brocade/test/com/cloud/network/element/Base64.jav
a PRE-CREATION
Should Base64.java be of concern from ASF license perspective? I think
Alex removed it [1] from the repo and this patch will
On 10/08/12 6:50 PM, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
Murali,
I really like this approach, and will be willing to step in and
implement the AMQP plugin after the initial framework is in place.
Great! I will let you know once framework is in place.
As for the design itself, one
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/6464/#review10213
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Murali Reddy
On Aug. 9, 2012, 9:10 a.m
On 16/08/12 5:55 AM, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
The only hesitation that I have is around ease of installation /
configuration. CloudStack is great at this today (one of the reasons
that my company gravitated to it), and I don't want to lose that
value. I don't think this
Are you using ASF repo or other git repo? If you are not particular on
3.0.2 Please use master branch on ASF repo [1].
Code has been re-structured to make plug-in development easier. You can
take example of random host allocator at 'plugins/host-allocators/random'
to create your own plugin. Add
On 15/08/12 3:00 AM, Krishna Sadasivam ksada...@brocade.com wrote:
I have submitted a new clean patch.
Thanks,
Krishna
I will review the patch over the week end. Please get the license issue
sorted out for 'deps/cloud-BrocadeService.jar' mean while.
On 16/08/12 11:27 PM, Kelven Yang kelven.y...@citrix.com wrote:
On 8/15/12 10:57 PM, Alex Huang alex.hu...@citrix.com wrote:
I don't think Murali and Kelven's proposals are related. Murali's is a
notification system so that someone who doesn't even want to know about
cloudstack's code can
are rolled back. In such cases, it better to be resilient.
- Murali Reddy
On Aug. 8, 2012, 11:31 p.m., Krishna Sadasivam wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/6492
On 20/08/12 11:23 PM, Kelven Yang kelven.y...@citrix.com wrote:
Murali,
The key point is the shifting to event-driven programming model itself at
orchestration layer, the underlying facility is currently not at critical
path, we will need to do a messaging arbitration here so that we can
plugin
Sure Darren. Current StateListener has both pre and post state
transitions. I think post transition fits exactly.
On 20/08/12 10:32 PM, Darren Shepherd dar...@godaddy.com wrote:
Murali,
This is just a random implementation note. Beware of DB transactions
and events. Events shouldn't be sent
On 22/08/12 6:23 AM, Jessica Tomechak jessica.tomec...@gmail.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Murali Reddy [mailto:murali.re...@citrix.com]
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 3:38 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: How to create a plugin in CS 3.0.2
Are you
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/6781/#review11238
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Murali Reddy
On Aug. 27, 2012, 11:10 a.m
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/6827/#review11239
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Murali Reddy
On Sept. 4, 2012, 5:47 a.m
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/6827/#review11240
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Murali Reddy
On Sept. 4, 2012, 5:47 a.m
To: Jessica Wang jessica.w...@citrix.commailto:jessica.w...@citrix.com
Cc: Murali Reddy murali.re...@citrix.commailto:murali.re...@citrix.com,
Alena Prokharchyk
alena.prokharc...@citrix.commailto:alena.prokharc...@citrix.com, Sangeetha
Hariharan
sangeetha.hariha...@citrix.commailto:sangeetha.hariha
I am trying to change EIP semantics supported by CloudStack for 4.1 release.
Today if some one deploys a basic zone with EIP service, then by default a
public IP is allocated for the user VM along with private IP, and then a 1:1
NAT is established between the public IP and private IP of the
-Original Message-
From: Murali Reddy [mailto:murali.re...@citrix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:48 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [4.1 feature RFC] Optional Public IP assignment for EIP with
Basic Zone
I am trying to change EIP semantics supported
CloudStack supports guest networks of type isolated and shared. While there is
rich support of L4-L7 network services like firewall, NAT, LB in the isolated
networks, similar network services are not available in the networks of shared
type. While there is EIP and ELB services which provides
with the network.
We already have associatedNetworkId parameter in listPublicIpAddresses
call. Just make sure it accepts Shared networkId.
-Alena.
On 10/16/12 1:17 AM, Murali Reddy murali.re...@citrix.com wrote:
I am trying to change EIP semantics supported by CloudStack for 4.1
release
be to set up the VLAN and assign a subnet IP or gateway IP of the shared
network on the device). Similarly when network is shutdown the VLAN and
the IP's need to be removed from the device.
Thanks,
Murali
Thank you,
Alena.
On 10/19/12 6:24 AM, Murali Reddy murali.re...@citrix.com wrote:
On 19/10
Alena,
I have couple of queries on the requirements listed in the spec.
- Shared Zone Wide SG Enabled Guest network is required in Advance SG
enabled zone as CPVM/SSVM are using it.
I am not clear why CPVM/SSVM will use the shared guest network with SG.
- No Isolated networks can be added to
, Murali Reddy murali.re...@citrix.com wrote:
CloudStack supports guest networks of type isolated and shared. While
there is rich support of L4-L7 network services like firewall, NAT, LB in
the isolated networks, similar network services are not available in the
networks of shared type. While
I would like to work on enhancing EIP/ELB functionality present in
CloudStack, so that highly available and fault-tolerant application can be
architected using CloudStack deployments at a region level. EIP and ELB
are both AWS networking features that help building fault-tolerant, highly
available
I am splitting up my original proposal [1] so as to discuss each feature
independently. Please refer to the bug description [2] for the EIP
enhancements I am planning to do. As mentioned earlier first I am planning
to do a POC, but couple of issues that I want to bring it up for
discussion.
On 19/12/12 1:59 PM, Anshul Gangwar anshul.gang...@citrix.com wrote:
Hi Murali,
Where can I find the FS for feature Event Notification Framework?
What part of code your changes will go and how they will affect my work?
Thanks
Anshul
Anshul,
FS is not unto date yet, but you can refer to [1]. You
Hey Murali,
Great to hear about where you stand right now. Is the code (work in
progress obviously) available on one of the branches? I'd love to
take a look at it.
-chip
Chip
I have been using 'events-framework' branch for this work. Please take a
look at
On 22/12/12 5:13 AM, Prasanna Santhanam prasanna.santha...@citrix.com
wrote:
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 04:54:54AM +0530, Manan Shah wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose a new feature for adding external LB support
to Shared Networks. I have created a JIRA ticket and provided the
requirements at
On 03/01/13 12:33 AM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote:
Interesting stuff. How and why did you decide on RabbitMQ?
David,
Default plug-in I am adding for event bus assumes AMQP. I have used
RabbitMQ AMQP client. But the AMQP server it self could be any
implementation of AMQP. Though I have not
Great to see this proposal. Do you intend to keep plug-in compatible only
with BVS application or will it work with FloodLight controller as well?
On 03/01/13 11:50 AM, Kanzhe Jiang kanzhe.ji...@bigswitch.com wrote:
Hi All,
Happy New Year to Everyone!
First of all, I am new to the community and
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8432/#review15109
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Murali Reddy
On Dec. 8, 2012, 4:18 p.m
Done. Pushed to both 4.0 and master branch.
On 04/01/13 8:54 PM, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
Kelvin / Murali,
You guys are listed as specific reviewers for Koushik's patch. If you
are the appropriate folks, can we please get this done today? If not,
please say so...
Joe's
, need not be
part of CloudStack.
On 12/20/12 3:46 AM, Murali Reddy murali.re...@citrix.com wrote:
Hey Murali,
Great to hear about where you stand right now. Is the code (work in
progress obviously) available on one of the branches? I'd love to
take a look at it.
-chip
Chip
I have been
In continuation to my proposal [1], I am brining GSLB support
separately for discussion. I have put up functional specification and
design documentation at [2]. Please provide feedback, comments.
Quick abstract of the feature:
Today CloudStack supports load balancing traffic across the VM
On 08/01/13 2:35 PM, Likitha Shetty likitha.she...@citrix.com wrote:
In the FS I have proposed we use the 'persistent' flag with the API's. I
have added this item under 'Open Issues' for now. Will update the FS
based on the discussion in this list.
Since a network offering is used by an admin to
On 09/01/13 8:36 PM, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
CLOUDSTACK-777
This is in the CloudPlatform 3.0.6 release
Docs already submitted, but no FS available.
Unable to find dev list discussion
I believe reporter of CLOUDSTACK-777 mistakenly opened duplicate of the
bug [1]. FS for
Unfortunately the VirtualNetworkApplianceManager behaves both as a plugin
and an orchestrator making it a bad example of how to develop a network
plugin.
Chiradeep,
If time permits I was planning to partially clean-up
VirtualNetworkApplianceManager as part of the CLOUDSTACK-655 [1] which is
of information, but
incoherently organized. Nice job.
On 1/8/13 12:52 PM, Murali Reddy murali.re...@citrix.com wrote:
In continuation to my proposal [1], I am brining GSLB support
separately for discussion. I have put up functional specification and
design documentation at [2]. Please provide
On 15/01/13 12:03 PM, Anshul Gangwar anshul.gang...@citrix.com wrote:
My comments inline..
On 14/01/13 22:52, Alex Huang wrote:
Anshul,
I had assumed that if you were doing this based on Murali's event
framework, it would not be architected on an adapter in the alert
manager but as a
)+Functional+specification+and+Design+Document
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-652
On 11/01/13 2:32 PM, Murali Reddy murali.re...@citrix.com wrote:
On 11/01/13 2:55 AM, Chiradeep Vittal chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com
wrote:
Thanks for the detailed and enlightening write-up*.
I feel
On 16/01/13 2:01 AM, Animesh Chaturvedi animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com
wrote:
Murali
Did you revert CLOUDSTACK-312 265? If not please do so at the earliest.
Also please provide update on the code posting for community review as we
have to get started on IP clearance quickly.
Thanks
Animesh
I guess this could be due to differences in ReservationStrategy 'Create'
and 'Start'. Both the strategies would need a prepare, but require release
only for 'Start' reservation strategy.
Please refer to [1] for explanation of reservation strategies.
I would like to call a vote for the Apache CloudStack project to accept a
donation from Citrix to support network services (PF, NAT, LB) in shared
networks of advanced zone.
The functional specification is available at [1] and has been discussed [2]
with no outstanding issues.
Patch [3] and
I would like to call a vote for the Apache CloudStack project to accept a
donation from Citrix to provide Optional Public IP assignment for EIP with
Basic Zone.
The functional specification is available at [1] and has been discussed [2]
with no outstanding issues. Bug 265 [3] opened to track
So if I understand this correctly, the message bus is only used by the
management server as a queue for events to forward to some other
endpoint?
Chip,
Message bus is just abstraction (with publish, subscribe, unsubscribe
semantics), used to push action events, alerts, usage events and
Thanks for the review. Please find the comments inline. In this spec I
tried to captures what I think will be high level design of this feature.
Specifics on the finer implementation details will be clear as I progress
with development. I will update the spec when feature in decent shape.
On
On 25/01/13 11:21 AM, li_fuqiong li_fuqi...@venustech.com.cn wrote:
Dear All,
Does CloudStack support openflow? If no, is there any plan to support?
Thanks.
Mark
Its under progress
(https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/BigSwitch+Networkin
g+Plugin) would support floodlight
wrote:
Hi Murali,
Thank you. will it appears in next version of CloudStack? When will the
next version will release?
Thank you.
Mark
From: Murali Reddy
Date: 2013-01-25 14:34
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; li_fuqiong
Subject: Re: Does CloudStack support openflow?
On 25/01/13 11:21 AM
I would like to request merge of events framework [4] branch changes in to
master to branch.
I have proposed a while ago [1], about the need for a framework to
Publish-Subscribe CloudStack to events. Initially I was planning to use
simple in-memory based publish-subscribe mechanism using google
On 29/01/13 12:37 AM, Frank Zhang frank.zh...@citrix.com wrote:
Sorry I may be late on this topic
Routing is designed to have the format.
Event-source.Event-Category.Event-Type.Resource.ResourceUUID. For e.g.
A message is published with a routing key:
Murali,
The use of Rabbit is still a question for me. It seems like you went
with Rabbit, but the answer you gave as to why [1] didn't really
answer the question or respond to the issue I raised about the
practicalities of AMQP differences between versions and brokers [2].
Can you address these
Kanze,
Thanks for the patch. On first look patch look good, but I will do a
detailed review tomorrow.
Meanwhile could you help me understand how the network is
provisioned/de-provisioned through the contrloller? I understand that you
plan to support Vlan isolation only for 4.1, so what is the
Great to see this being close to coming into master! A couple of
questions:
1 - I don't seem to be able to find any new unit tests that cover the
feature. Are there any that I'm missing?
I am working on unit tests. I will update the thread once I have unit
tests pushed to feature branch
2 -
Potential impact and notes:
* 4 new states are added to VM state Machine
Mice,
When the VM is in transient states (RunningSnapshotting,
StoppedSnapshotting), I see that you have taken care of vmsync. But have
you ensured that all the concurrent operations on the VM are blocked when
the VM
is Running, but
will succeed if the state is 'RunningSnapshotting' which is un-intended.
-Mice
-Original Message-
From: Murali Reddy [mailto:murali.re...@citrix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:12 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
Ok. this makes more sense as I think there would not be too many
subscribers.
So you would notify publisher that a new queue has been created? Otherwise
how does publisher push the events out?
Generally idea of pub-sub model is that publisher/subscriber need not be
aware the existence of
/9143/#comment34125
How does find() launches the agent on Hyper-V host? I could not understand
how waitForHostConnect() will succeed.
- Murali Reddy
On Jan. 29, 2013, 9:43 p.m., Donal Lafferty wrote:
---
This is an automatically
On 30/01/13 2:24 PM, Mice Xia mice_...@tcloudcomputing.com wrote:
Agreed.
Adding VM states are likely to have some side-effects, but for
moveVMToUser case, does it explicitly reject other transient states such
as stating/stopping/migrating?
-Mice
No, it just accepts any state other than
Chip,
Thanks for taking care of legal docs. I will include the legal
documentation when I merge.
On 30/01/13 8:10 PM, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Chip Childers
chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
3) One of us has to take care of the legal docs.
On 30/01/13 10:24 PM, Rohit Yadav bhais...@apache.org wrote:
Are you on Windows? If so cannot help you much, you have an evil
development environment. Killing the process (task manager or
otherwise) and starting the mgmt server after few secs may work.
I see it on mac as well :) keep running
to setup the
necessary flow information through controller for shared networks?
Regards,
Murali
From: Kanzhe Jiang
kanzhe.ji...@bigswitch.commailto:kanzhe.ji...@bigswitch.com
Date: Thursday, 31 January 2013 1:28 AM
To: Murali Reddy murali.re...@citrix.commailto:murali.re...@citrix.com
Cc:
cloudstack
On 31/01/13 12:34 AM, Frank Zhang frank.zh...@citrix.com wrote:
Sorry, I may have not made my question clear.
Publisher doesn't have to be aware of consumer, but it must know the
binding key.
Now I reread the below statement I think I got your idea is:
When subscriber subscribes an event, the
On 30/01/13 11:31 PM, Chiradeep Vittal chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com
wrote:
For the account sync, we can make use of the new event framework: instead
of calling account sync inline with account creation, simply emit an
event.
The event can be consumed by the account sync service.
Chiradeep,
:51 AM, Chiradeep Vittal
chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com wrote:
On 1/31/13 9:21 AM, Kishan Kavala kishan.kav...@citrix.com wrote:
On 31-Jan-2013, at 9:36 PM, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com
wrote:
On Jan 31, 2013, at 5:56 AM, Murali Reddy murali.re...@citrix.com
wrote:
On 30
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9131/#review15990
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Murali Reddy
On Feb. 1, 2013, 1:03 a.m
/DeleteEgressFirewallRuleCmd.java
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9236/#comment34293
need entity type here as well
- Murali Reddy
On Feb. 1, 2013, 6:48 a.m., Jayapal Reddy wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit
is not
applying. Can you please rebase to new master and the new patch.
Otherwise changes look good.
- Murali Reddy
On Jan. 31, 2013, 3:40 p.m., Likitha Shetty wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9236/#review15994
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Murali Reddy
On Feb. 1, 2013, 8:32 a.m
- Murali Reddy
On Feb. 1, 2013, 9:22 a.m., Likitha Shetty wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9179/
---
(Updated
upgrade or same as cidr?
- Murali Reddy
On Feb. 1, 2013, 10:34 a.m., saksham srivastava wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9180
only from
the guest CIDR range when its different from the network CIDR?
- Murali Reddy
On Feb. 1, 2013, 10:34 a.m., saksham srivastava wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org
On 06/02/13 4:12 AM, Prachi Damle prachi.da...@citrix.com wrote:
As per discussions below, the scope of the feature now consists of a
generic framework for defining affinity groups in CloudStack and a
default implementation to support host affinity and anti-affinity.
Prachi,
When the
you should be using 4.1 to 4.2 upgrade script
- Murali Reddy
On Feb. 8, 2013, 9:39 a.m., Saksham Srivastava wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9180
I have added below dependency in plugins/event-bus/rabbitmq/pom.xml
dependency
groupIdcom.rabbitmq/groupId
artifactIdamqp-client/artifactId
version2.8.7/version
/dependency
On 13/02/13 3:43 AM, Chip Childers chip.child...@sungard.com wrote:
Hi all,
Hoping that everyone that has worked
ea3db2f073a5076d7822497a3032a0cd2d47a297
Author: Saksham Srivastava saksham.srivast...@citrix.com
Date: Fri Feb 22 15:46:45 2013 +0530
- Murali Reddy
On Feb. 19, 2013, 12:57 p.m., Saksham Srivastava wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail
no trailing
white spaces. i see some commented out code, Plz remove them.
- Murali Reddy
On Feb. 19, 2013, 4:19 p.m., Jayapal Reddy wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9396
Hugo,
In the current model, components that are not needed by default are not
present in componentContext.xml. Just in case if you have not noticed, in
4.1, NiciraNvp bean is not enabled by default :). Admin needs to edit
componentContext.xml, to enable a optional component.
Thanks!
On 26/02/13
On 06/03/13 11:52 PM, Kelven Yang kelven.y...@citrix.com wrote:
First +1 on BVT.
Second, should we consider the idea of having a staging area for people to
check-in? Which is that making master always the stable(reasonable) branch
for main development, but whenever people make check-ins, it
Also with out staging, features developed by non-commiters else where,
even with good code review in place there is always possibility of
regression after feature merge into master.
On 07/03/13 10:41 AM, Murali Reddy murali.re...@citrix.com wrote:
On 06/03/13 11:52 PM, Kelven Yang kelven.y
: 2feda05ecd15d7fe63bd986868de2844340acec6
Parents: b4bab5a
Author: Murali Reddy murali.re...@citrix.commailto:murali.re...@citrix.com
Authored: Wed Mar 13 17:17:12 2013 +0530
Committer: Murali Reddy
murali.re...@citrix.commailto:murali.re...@citrix.com
Committed: Wed Mar 13 17:30:15 2013 +0530
On 13/03/13 3:14 PM, Donal Lafferty donal.laffe...@citrix.com wrote:
WRT #2: C# code on a .NET framework classes is a well-supported
implementation option. The code's copyright would be held by Apache
CloudStack. The libraries on which it depended would be proprietary to
Microsoft (.NET
I would like to propose enhancing current EIP functionality (currently
available in basic zone). I have made a case for this feature earlier [2] and
captured requirements in the feature bug [2]. This proposal would like to
introduce following functionality.
1. EIP service with in 'advanced'
On 16/03/13 1:46 AM, Will Stevens wstev...@cloudops.com wrote:
1. Restrict the available subnets for each account so two accounts can't
create overlapping subnets.
To me, this breaks the whole concept of cloud, but for enterprise
customers
this is not a huge limitation because they usually solve
that public IP (non RFC 1918) can be
moved/allocated across the zones, then (irrespective of EIP service is
enabled or not) we have can public IP pools configured at region level.
But question is, is it a fair assumption?
On 3/17/13 10:31 PM, Murali Reddy murali.re...@citrix.com wrote:
I would
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10021/
---
Review request for cloudstack and Murali Reddy.
Description
---
Merge
I would like to merge GSLB feature proposed [1] and developed in the feature
branch [2] into master. Code for this feature pretty much conforms to what was
proposed in FS [3]. I added unit tests for all the new service layer methods
introduced[4]. I have made the patch available at [5], if any
://reviews.apache.org/r/10021/#comment38280
IMPORTANT: Account, Domain...not set!
- Vijay Venkatachalam
On March 20, 2013, 1:43 a.m., Murali Reddy wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https
Kelven, I see that you fixed action event issue in below commit. But I am
still running into some issues. While working on CLOUDSTACK-1673 I noticed
that in case of AccountManagerImpl, there are multiple methods with same
name. So in that case getAnnotation on the method is returning null even
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
