I believe thats the correct template. Acton was the 3.0 release, so the versions match up. I dont think there were any new system templates since.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Andreas Huser <ahu...@7five-edv.de> wrote: > Hi, > > > I have a second question. > In the installation manual of version 4.0 it is set the template download > path to > http://download.cloud.com/templates/acton/acton-systemvm-02062012.qcow2.bz2 > > and the same template it is in my database!? > I download now the template bunzip and check the checksum. > both are the same! > > When i create a new virtual router (network) and look to the router > version inside. I get this result > "Cloudstack Release 3.0 Mon Feb 6 15:10:04 PST 2012" > > I am not sure but must the template or router version not a little bit > newer to be? > > > Regards > Andreas > > > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > > Von: "Andreas Huser" <ahu...@7five-edv.de> > An: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org > Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. Februar 2013 10:35:37 > Betreff: Re: trouble with upgrade 3.0.2 to 4.0 and systemvm no network > > Hi, > > many thanks for your fast reply und some answers! > I am use KVM but i think the workaround works for kvm to. > I build a test environment to test this. > I say when i'm done and poste the result. > > Regards > Andreas > > > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > > Von: "Tamas Monos" <tam...@veber.co.uk> > An: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org > Gesendet: Montag, 4. Februar 2013 23:16:39 > Betreff: RE: trouble with upgrade 3.0.2 to 4.0 and systemvm no network > > Hi, > > Done: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1151 > > Regards > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] > Sent: 04 February 2013 19:46 > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org; aemne...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: trouble with upgrade 3.0.2 to 4.0 and systemvm no network > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Ahmad Emneina <aemne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey Tamas, is it really necessary to manually update the system > > template id's for vmware? I would have figured cloudstack would have > > done this... if not it's a bad bug, would you know if thats filed? > > > > Also on the usage, is that the only db discrepancy between a clean and > > upgraded setup. These are all valuable bugs/workarounds, that should > > probably persist beyond the mailing list... Can we update the release > > notes for 4.0 with this info??? > > > > 4.0.1 has the usage fix in it. > > This is the first I've heard of the vmware bug, Tamas, if a bug doesn't > exist for this, can you please file and mark it as a blocker for 4.0.2? > > --David >
