Good for you James. CS 3.0.2 is quite full of bugs, which is very evident when looking at the Citrix bug list. A lot of them are fixed in CS 3.0.3 I believe, but we probably won't be seeing that till it's out of incubator status.
I disagree completely with your definition of 'very stable'. I know everyone has a different config, but some of the advertised features are definitely pre-alpha (local storage support case and point). -Alex On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:28 PM, James Kahn <jk...@idea11.com.au> wrote: > Alexey sounds like a troll to me. > > We find the CS 3.x series very stable and it performs exceptionally well. > Yes, there are some bugs, but so far those have been reasonably minor. > That's what you get for being close to the cutting edge. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tamas Monos <tam...@veber.co.uk> > Reply-To: "cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org" > <cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org> > Date: Friday, 22 June 2012 9:28 PM > To: "cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org" > <cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org> > Subject: RE: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm. > > >Hi, > > > >I'm using CS 3.0.2 with vSphere 4.1 update1 (paid ESX not ESXi). > >I have a single cluster with two nodes and shared ISCSI storage and very > >happy with it. > >Personally would recommend against local storage as I have noticed vmware > >can be very slow using its local hard drive for VM storage as many VM > >chewing the same disk is painful. > >Also you will not have failover without a shared storage. > >Even if you are tight on budget you could put together an NFS or ISCSI > >server with a 10-15 disk raid. > > > >Could you let us know what do you mean "that really seems to mess it up, > >is enabling local storage. This tends to just make things horribly > >unstable"? Or point me to the bugs you are referring to? > >What is unstable? Do you get exceptions? Can't you deploy VMs? > > > >Regards > > > >Tamas Monos DDI > >+44(0)2034687012 > >Chief Technical Office > >+44(0)2034687000 > >Veber: The Hosting Specialists Fax +44(0)871 522 > >7057 > >http://www.veber.co.uk > > > >Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/veberhost > >Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/veberhost > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Alexey Zilber [mailto:alexeyzil...@gmail.com] > >Sent: 22 June 2012 11:30 > >To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org > >Subject: Re: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm. > > > >Hi Tamas, > > > > I'm probably stuck with 3.0.2 for now since I decided to use vSphere 5 > >(instead of the KVM install I just had). Many of the issues I've had are > >actually documented bugs, but since the project is somewhat in limbo I > >don't know how long we have to wait. I've been installing and > >re-installing in different configs CS 3.0.2 for about a week now, and > >finally got it to a sweet spot where it would run just fine with a single > >hypervisor. > > One of the things that really seems to mess it up, is enabling local > >storage. This tends to just make things horribly unstable. I just blew > >away my current setup of XenServer+KVM and am going to do another attempt > >(But with XenServer and vSphere) with local storage (since both are > >purported to support local storage). > > I'm sure 3.0.2 runs just fine once it's setup and it's working, but I > >just find it very disturbing that one small change can throw the whole > >system. I'd be very worried in using it production. > > > >Thanks, > >Alex > > > >On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Tamas Monos <tam...@veber.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I think 3.0.2 is not pre-alpha by far. I can easily run a production > >> environment on it with billing integration and customers are happy. > >> Nothing is perfect ever but there is always a workaround. If you could > >> describe what is unusable or blows up we might be able to help. > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Tamas Monos DDI > >> +44(0)2034687012 > >> Chief Technical Office > >> +44(0)2034687000 > >> Veber: The Hosting Specialists Fax +44(0)871 522 > >> 7057 > >> http://www.veber.co.uk > >> > >> Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/veberhost Follow us on Facebook: > >> www.facebook.com/veberhost > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Alexey Zilber [mailto:alexeyzil...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: 22 June 2012 02:33 > >> To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm. > >> > >> That's a funny place for it to show up, imho. It's a system vm. I'm > >> pretty sure when I was using the Xen hypervisor it was showing up > >> under system vm's. Then again, the 3.x branch is so pre-alpha I don't > >> know where stuff will show up anymore. > >> > >> Any news on when the incubator project is going to be ramped up? > >> 3.0.2 is essentially unusable. Just adding another hypervisor to the > >> mix causes it to blow up. I did notice a ton of bug fixes, but those > >> won't show up in any builds till the incubator project is up and > >>running I'm guessing. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Alex > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Alexey Zilber [mailto:alexeyzil...@gmail.com] > >> > > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 5:14 PM > >> > > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org > >> > > Subject: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm. > >> > > > >> > > Hi All, > >> > > > >> > > This looks like a bug in CS 3.0.2. I did a clean install. > >> > > Everything is > >> > > on Centos 6.2. Installed KVM as the first hypervisor in the > >>cluster. > >> > > Launched an instance. virsh reports: > >> > > > >> > > [root@kvm1 init.d]# virsh list > >> > > Id Name State > >> > > ---------------------------------- > >> > > 1 s-1-VM running > >> > > 2 v-2-VM running > >> > > * 3 r-4-VM running* > >> > > 4 i-2-3-VM running > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > #3 above is the system router vm. It does not show up under > >> > > 'system vm' > >> > > >> > Router VM should not be shown up under "system vm". It should be > >> > under "zone->network->" > >> > > >> > > under the Zones. (#1 and #2 do). This is concerning because when I > >> > > used > >> > > Xen, it reported it correctly. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Alex > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > >
