Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a DB update. Can you clarify that?
Thanks! On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db changes... Do > you have a commit id? > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey <tmac...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things work better > > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues, being able > > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database update. > So > > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the various > > pre-release builds since beta.2). > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > > > > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer resource > > class > > > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't think you need > to > > > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version. > > > > > > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of XenServer, then > > > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle the > > > discrepancies. > > > > > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis <adr...@alsiconsulting.co.uk > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with > using > > > 6.5 > > > > when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility problems, > > > will > > > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told that > > > newer, > > > > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid hypervisor? > > > > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5 when > it > > > > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using it? > If > > > so, > > > > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it require > > > > rebuilding? > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:stephen.tur...@citrix.com > <javascript:;>] > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28 > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;> > > > > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5 > > > > > > > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are large > internal > > > > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage > datapath, > > > > PVHVM > > > > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Stephen Turner > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com <javascript:;>] > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32 > > > > To: dev > > > > Subject: xenserver 6.5 > > > > > > > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an > idea > > of > > > > how much effort that is going to be? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Daan > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > *Mike Tutkowski* > > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > > > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > > > o: 303.746.7302 > > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud > > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* > > > > > > > > > -- > Daan > -- *Mike Tutkowski* *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com o: 303.746.7302 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
