Hi I have not signed up for Upgrade. I read in the ML it is going to be taken up during the hackathon at Collab Conf.
-----Original Message----- From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:45 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Radhika Puthiyetath Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.1 Sorry, that should read 'unable to create VPCs'. On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, I understand that 4.2.0 had a lot of post-release work needed. > > We are unable to create VPNs. This is reported second hand from one > of my admins. He seems to think that it was caused by the following, > which added a for loop inside a for loop. The error is: > 'com.mysql.jdbc.exceptions.jdbc4.MySQLIntegrityConstraintViolationException: > Duplicate entry '146-Lb' for key 'vpc_id' > > We did the following to fix it, something should be added to the sql upgrade. > mysql -D cloud -t -e 'alter table vpc_service_map drop key vpc_id, add > unique key vpc_id (vpc_id,service,provider)' > > > commit 9050cfad3da673370d6ad1ed7570e31314069996 > > CLOUDSTACK-4704: 41-42 db upgrade - populate vpc_service_map table > with the services/providers supported by VPC > > > @Override > @DB > - public void persistVpcServiceProviders(long vpcId, Map<String, > String> serviceProviderMap) { > + public void persistVpcServiceProviders(long vpcId, Map<String, > List<String>> serviceProviderMap) { > Transaction txn = Transaction.currentTxn(); > txn.start(); > for (String service : serviceProviderMap.keySet()) { > - VpcServiceMapVO serviceMap = new VpcServiceMapVO(vpcId, > Network.Service.getService(service), > Network.Provider.getProvider(serviceProviderMap.get(service))); > - _vpcSvcMap.persist(serviceMap); > + for (String provider : serviceProviderMap.get(service)) { > + VpcServiceMapVO serviceMap = new > VpcServiceMapVO(vpcId, Network.Service.getService(service), > Network.Provider.getProvider(provider)); > + _vpcSvcMap.persist(serviceMap); > + } > } > txn.commit(); > } > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> +1 binding (I had not been clear on this in this thread it seems) >> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Abhinandan Prateek >> <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> Marcus, >>> >>> Just summarising your concerns so that they can be followed upon: >>> 1. Due to a VR script change a restart of VR is required. This >>> should be noted down in upgrade instructions in RN. (Radhika to >>> note) 2. For a maintenance release we should limit the scope to only >>> blockers. I guess what is done is done probably for better as the >>> main release had so many new features that a whole lot fixes were >>> expected in the maintenance release. But again for further >>> maintenance releases scope should be restricted to important fixes. >>> >>> Any other thing that has been missed ? >>> >>> -abhi >>> >>> >>> On 14/11/13 12:06 am, "Marcus Sorensen" <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>I'm unable to deploy virtual machines after upgrading an existing >>>>4.2.0 to this release. >>>> >>>>It looks like the file savepassword.sh was added at the end of >>>>October as a virtual router script. This would likely mean that >>>>people upgrading to 4.2.1 will need to upgrade/redeploy their >>>>routers. I can verify that deploy works if I reboot the router. >>>> >>>>Looking over the current state of 4.2, I'm actually pretty surprised >>>>at how much has changed. I'm seeing lots of whitespace fixes, >>>>changes to interfaces, etc. My impression was that we'd only commit >>>>fixes for blocker bugs once a release has gone production, only >>>>touching it if we had to. This went pretty well with 4.1, I thought, >>>>but everything was going through the RM that round. >>>> >>>>2013-11-13 11:25:24,917 DEBUG >>>>[resource.virtualnetwork.VirtualRoutingResource] >>>>(agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Executing: >>>>/usr/share/cloudstack-common/scripts/network/domr/router_proxy.sh >>>>savepassword.sh 169.254.1.163 -v 10.2.4.116 -p fnirq_cnffjbeq >>>> >>>>2013-11-13 11:25:25,000 DEBUG >>>>[resource.virtualnetwork.VirtualRoutingResource] >>>>(agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Exit value is 127 >>>> >>>>2013-11-13 11:25:25,001 DEBUG >>>>[resource.virtualnetwork.VirtualRoutingResource] >>>>(agentRequest-Handler-2:null) bash: /opt/cloud/bin/savepassword.sh: >>>>No such file or directory >>>> >>>>2013-11-13 11:25:25,002 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent] >>>>(agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Seq 21-289734823: { Ans: , MgmtId: >>>>90520732090445, via: 21, Ver: v1, Flags: 110, >>>>[{"com.cloud.agent.api.Answer":{"result":false,"details":"Unable to >>>>save password to >>>>DomR.","wait":0}},{"com.cloud.agent.api.Answer":{"result":false,"details": >>>>"Stopped >>>>by previous failure","wait":0}}] } >>>> >>>>On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Chip Childers >>>><chipchild...@apache.org> >>>>wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Abhinandan Prateek >>>>> <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This vote is to approve the current RC build for 4.2.1 >>>>>>maintenance release. >>>>>> For this particular release various upgrade paths have been >>>>>>tested apart from regression tests and BVTs. >>>>>> Around 175 bugs have been fixed some new features added (see CHANGES). >>>>>> >>>>>> Following are the particulars for this release: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlo >>>>>>g;h=re >>>>>>fs/heads/4.2 >>>>>> commit: 0b9eadaf14513f5c72de672963b0e2f12ee7206f >>>>>> >>>>>> List of changes: >>>>>> >>>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_pl >>>>>>ain;f= >>>>>>CHANGES;hb=4.2.1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Source release revision 3492 (checksums and signatures are >>>>>>available at the same location): >>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/ >>>>>> >>>>>> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1): >>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS >>>>>> >>>>>> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 11/15 End of day PST). >>>>>> >>>>>> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure >>>>>>to indicate "(binding)" with their vote? >>>>>> >>>>>> [ ] +1 approve >>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion >>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) >>>>> >>>>> +1 (binding) >>>>> >>>>> I only performed very rudimentary functional testing, but the >>>>> artifact's look legit. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for doing this Abhi! >>>
