Why is it listed as fixed in 4.11.1.0 in the release note, If the code only
exist in 4.11.2?
On 7/16/18, 12:43 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> wrote:
OK, as Rafael noted, looks like it’s in 4.11.2. My regression tests were
run against 4.11.1. I thought we only allowed bug fixes when going to a new RC,
but it appears we are not strictly enforcing that rule.
On 7/16/18, 1:40 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> wrote:
When I ran my suite of tests on 4.11.1, I did not encounter this issue.
Also, looking at the code now, it appears this new code is first in 4.12.
On 7/16/18, 1:36 PM, "Yiping Zhang" <yzh...@marketo.com> wrote:
Is this code already in ACS 4.11.1.0?
CLOUDSTACK-10240 is listed as fixed in 4.11.1.0, according to
release note here,
http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-release-notes/ja/master/fixed_issues.html,
but in the JIRA ticket itself, the "fixed version/s" field says 4.12.
We are using XenServer clusters with shared NFS storages and I am
about to migrate to ACS 4.11.1.0 from 4.9.3.0. Since we move VM between
clusters a lot, this is going to be a blocker for us. Someone please confirm.
Thanks
Yiping
On 7/14/18, 11:20 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com>
wrote:
Hi,
While running managed-storage regression tests tonight, I
noticed a problem that is not related to managed storage.
CLOUDSTACK-10240 is a ticket asking that we allow the migration
of a virtual disk that’s on local storage to shared storage. In the process of
enabling this feature, the
VirtualMachineManagerImpl.getPoolListForVolumesForMigration method was
re-written in a way that completely breaks at least one use case: Migrating a
VM across compute clusters (at least supported in XenServer). If, say, a
virtual disk resides on shared storage in the source compute cluster, we must
be able to copy this virtual disk to shared storage in the destination compute
cluster.
As the code is currently written, this is no longer possible.
It also seems that the managed-storage logic has been dropped for some reason
in the new implementation.
Rafael – It seems that you worked on this feature. Would you be
able to look into this and create a PR?
Thanks,
Mike
