Spec for this feature is available at [1]. For 4.3, as mentioned in the spec, enough flexibility is provided but the communication with older version systemVms will be limited. Please provide your feedback.
[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Improve+SystemVm+upgrades > -----Original Message----- > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, 4 October 2013 2:08 AM > To: dev > Subject: Re: [Proposal] Improve VR upgrades > > At Schuberg Philis we are looking at supporting HA redundant virtual routers > to > be able to upgrade without any downtime. I don't think there is any other way > to go in the future, for multi-tenant corporate environments. > Upgrading will then mean destroying the redundant pair one by one while > waiting with destroying the second one till the first is back up. > > Of course this is not usefull for other systemvms then the router vms. Do you > see a place for this in your design, Kishan? > > As for Chip's concern; another implementation would be to allow for a > versioned vm/ms interface, instead of a backwards compatible one. Any way it > is a matter to deal with somehow. > > Daan > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Chip Childers > <chip.child...@sungard.com>wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 11:47:57AM +0000, Kishan Kavala wrote: > > > During CS upgrade, VRs are required to be upgraded to use newer > > > systemVm > > template . > > > The current VR upgrade procedure has following limitations: > > > - takes 'long' time and the time exponentially increases with the > > > size > > of the cloud > > > - no way to sequence upgrade of different parts of the cloud, i.e., > > specific clusters or pods or even zones > > > - there is no way to determine when a particular customer's services > > (e.g. VR) will be upgraded with the upgrade interval > > > > > > Goals for this feature are to address the above issues > > > > > > 1. Give admin control to sequence the upgrade of the cloud by: > > > - Infrastructure hierarchy: by Cluster, Pod, and Zone etc. > > > - Administrative hierarchy: by Tenant or Domain 2. Minimize > > > service interruption to users 3. Improve the speed of the upgrade > > > time by making as many upgrade > > operations in parallel as possible > > > > > > I've created JIRA ticket: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4793 > > > > > > thanks, > > > Kishan > > > > > > > This proposal sounds great, but the devil will be in the > > implementation details. To do this as rolling, we'd need to ensure > > backward compat with agent>MS communications, right? > > > > -chip > >
