Hi
We would like to make a change proposal for SSVM/CPVM.
Currently, the SSVM/CPVM get an IP from the "default" pool of
vlaniprange which is the from the account "system"
"vlaniprange": [
{
"account": "system",
"domain": "ROOT",
"endip": "10.101.0.250",
Thanks Rohit!
On 01/06/2017 06:03 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> After 72 hours, the vote for CloudStack 4.9.2.0 *passes* with
>
> 4 PMC + 0 non-PMC votes.
>
>
>
> +1 (PMC / binding)
>
> 4 person (Wido, Bruno, Rajani, Rohit)
>
>
>
> +1 (non binding)
>
> none
>
>
> 0
>
>
LOL
On 11/30/2016 11:46 AM, Wilder Rodrigues wrote:
> I might need that filter, Rene! :D
As I run my own mail server and read my mails on mobile devices, I put
the filter on my mail server with a header check (postfix). This might
not work for you :)
/^Subject: \[GitHub\] cloudstack .*/
Hi List
As I know there are a few Ansible users here using the CloudStack
modules, let me give you an update:
New Modules in 2.2
- cs_router
- cs_snapshot_policy
In the upcoming 2.2.1, the modules also work with python3.
Roadmap for 2.3
===
New modules planned
---
Welcome back Wilder!
I am also back as I manged to have a decent filtering of all the github
mails :)
René
On 11/30/2016 09:58 AM, Wilder Rodrigues wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have been away for a while, but would like to let you now that I will try
> to follow a a bit more closely the
Hi
On 09/12/2016 10:20 PM, Will Stevens wrote:
> *Disclaimer:* This is a thought experiment and should be treated as such.
> Please weigh in with the good and bad of this idea...
>
> A couple of us have been discussing the idea of potentially replacing the
> ACS VR with the VyOS [1] (Open Source
Hi
On 09/07/2016 09:34 AM, Artjoms Petrovs wrote:
> Hello, All!
>
> A while back I’ve found a need to monitor Virtual Router performance (
> CPU, Network peaks, etc ), which is not provided by VR Service
> Monitoring Tool.
>
>
>
> Does anyone have experience with adding Zabbix ( or Nagios )
Hi Rohit
On 08/06/2016 11:14 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Meet blueorangutan [1], a Github bot account that will help us automate
> CloudStack (PR) testing [2][3] among other things.
Pretty cool. I like this progress. Well done!
> It works by polling Github notifications for the
Hi
I used to use marvin for setup simulator environments for using it as
integration test environments (4.5-latest) for the Ansible CloudStack
modules.
It's been a while and I can not really remember exactly what it was
caused it to fail but since a few weeks I was not able to setup such an
On 03/18/2016 11:44 PM, Will Stevens wrote:
> *Proposal:*
> Transfer ownership of the 'apache/cloudstack' mirrored repository out of
> the 'apache' github organization into the 'apache-cloudstack' github
> organization (which I have already setup and started inviting users to).
> Both members of
Hi
On 03/09/2016 06:33 AM, Abhinandan Prateek wrote:
> In 4.5 there is a timeout param that was added ‘ldap.read.timeout’ that
> defaults to 1000,
> It should be set to about 6000 and that should resolve the read timeout
> that you guys see.
we already set it to 6000 (and more) as you can see
We are experiencing authentication issues with LDAP since upgrade to 4.5.1.
After some time (...), users can not authenticate anymore, however,
authentication in other services using ldap works during this time. The
issue is only related to cloudstack login it seems.
We haven't found the root
Erik
On 02/22/2016 01:50 PM, Erik Weber wrote:
> Adding a boilerplate in the install/admin docs that says "If you have no
> other tools in place to handle system vm updates, consider enabling this
> option: x.y.z" is good enough for me.
> This is supposed to be a way for all those who don't have
Hi
I don't like the idea cloudstack management handles the "apt-get update
&& apt-get upgrade" (I am -1 for this solution) or at least I would like
to disable it by configuration, if we go this direction.
We use ansible (what a surprise) to update the VR and also add some
custom patches to it.
John,
Something is not clear to me about the frequency of new LTS releases and
support time range.
You wrote in the proposal, that we branch off for a new LTS version 2
times a year, but only 2 LTS versions will in active maintained at any
time, but supported for 20 months.
This conflicting in
On 01/11/2016 10:56 AM, sebgoa wrote:
> this is exactly what "moving to github" would mean.
> if we agree to do this, we then need to work with infra and the board to make
> sure everything is ok in terms of provenance and that it does not "break" our
> ASF "commitment"
I see. Thanks for
Hi Sebastien
On 01/11/2016 09:53 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> Part 3:
>
>
> To me the main issue for us is that our current privileges on GitHub prevent
> us from building more productive CI workflow and makes the life of the RM
> more difficult (cannot use labels, cannot use issues,
LTS by the community is not an option for now:
Most of the threads/users/devs had concerns or are skeptical how it can
be done in practice.
As we recently changed the release process, it seems to "early" to
change it again or add new processes to it.
I still think CloudStack need some kind of
On 01/11/2016 02:28 PM, Nux! wrote:
> What lifetime are we talking rougly for an LTS release? 6 months, 12 months?
I thought about 18 months. After 12 months we define a new LTS.
So users have a 6 months time frame to switch from LTS to LTS.
Hi Remi
On 01/11/2016 04:16 PM, Remi Bergsma wrote:
> Maintaining LTS is harder than it seems. For example with upgrading. You can
> only upgrade to versions that are released _after_ the specific LTS version.
> This due to the way upgrades work. If you release 4.7.7 when we’re on say
> 4.10,
On 01/10/2016 11:46 PM, Erik Weber wrote:
> What if the fix is part of a refactorization or a new feature?
> Providing a LTS is not 'easy as pie' with a product like CloudStack where a
> lot of code changes over time.
Didn't say it's easy :)
Yes re-factorization is one of the unsolved
>> +1
>> Em 9 de jan de 2016 8:55 PM, "Rene Moser" <m...@renemoser.net> escreveu:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I recently started a discussion about the current release process. You
>>> may have noticed that CloudStack had a few releases in th
Hi Wido
On 01/10/2016 08:23 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> I personally am against LTS versions. If we keep the release cycle short
> enough each .1 increment in version will only include a very small set
> of features and bug fixes.
>
> In the old days it took months for a release, if we bring
On 01/10/2016 10:07 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> Ok, understood. However, it will be up to users on their own to pick
> this LTS maintainment up.
It would be up to the devs making fixes small (so no squashing for
fixes) and notify the one maintaining the LTS version if they feel the
fix is
Hi
I recently started a discussion about the current release process. You
may have noticed that CloudStack had a few releases in the last 2 months.
My concerns were that many CloudStack users will be confused about these
many releases (which one to take? Are fixes backported? How long will it
On 01/07/2016 05:27 PM, Remi Bergsma wrote:
> Anyway, I cannot and don’t want to convince you. We want something different
> and that is fine. What I do want to know is what others want. Because if the
> majority wants what you are asking for, we should do that.
It is not my decision, it is a
On 01/07/2016 05:04 PM, sebgoa wrote:
> Yet folks (like Rene) may like a pattern of just minor and very infrequent
> major. While folks like Remi want continuous deployment.
>
> So at the cost of sounding a bit "fatherly" we indeed need to discuss this a
> bit. I mentioned it after 4.6, and
Hi Seb
On 12/19/2015 10:12 AM, sebgoa wrote:
> Late October I started thread [1] about moving our repo to GitHub, I would
> like to re-open this discussion.
>
> Now that we have stabilized master and release 4.6.0, 4.6.1, 4.6.2 and 4.7.0
> we need to think about the next steps.
>
> To me Git
On 12/19/2015 07:57 PM, Remi Bergsma wrote:
> I disagree with testing based on complexity. You simply cannot know the
> implications upfront, as that is why you run the tests. What seems small, can
> break it all.
>
> Example:
> This commit seems an easy_fix, right? Just a findbugs issue
Hi Rohit
We at swiss txt would appreciate a 4.5.3 to be released asap, it already
contains this fix https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/922 which
lets us finally activate DRS in our vmware setup. Huge gain on
performance and reliability.
Another one related to VR which has _not_ yet been
Hi
This security issue came to my attention:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COLLECTIONS-580
See
http://foxglovesecurity.com/2015/11/06/what-do-weblogic-websphere-jboss-jenkins-opennms-and-your-application-have-in-common-this-vulnerability/
for more background information.
I am not sure
On 11/05/2015 09:45 AM, Erik Weber wrote:
> Unless I'm seeing wrong, we have a branch, and it's called
I am not seeing it on github yet, but on here
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=tags
Hi
I have kind of a question about the tagging policy in cloudstack git repo:
We now have tag 4.6.0 but we call it an RC. This raises 2 problems:
1st: from the public perspective, this is a released version. Or how can
anyone not related to the project see, if this is an RC or not?
2nd: tags
Hi
On 10/26/2015 10:59 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>> But, I thinks that would be better to keep the control of the source
>> code repo. This is the core of your work.
>>
>
> Agree. I love Github and it works great, but make it THE primary source
> for the source code and go away from ASF?
I discovered the race condition bug related to CLOUDSTACK-8848 while
testing in our lab and daan started a PR
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/829 for discussion.
But it turned out to be a dead end discussion. Daan and I started a
debug session on Friday a week ago and we discovered
Hi René
On 09/16/2015 10:17 AM, Anshul Gangwar wrote:
> Currently we report only PowerOn VMs and do not report PowerOff VMs that's
> why we consider Missing and PowerOff as same And that's how most of the code
> is written for VM sync and each Hypervisor resource has same understanding.
>
On 09/16/2015 11:46 AM, Anshul Gangwar wrote:
> It’s not difficult to find a good grace period. It will simply depend on your
> Hypervisor settings how it is configured for HA. You can easily figure out
> for how much time there will be no VM on any Host from your settings and
> simply put 2-3
+1!
On 08/28/2015 08:51 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Some of us have discussed in the past on fixing CloudStack’s upgrade and
> DB migration, I’m trying to explore if we can really fix this. Please
> review, advise changes, add suggestions along with your upgrade
> experience so we can
Hey
Since we rebuild our communication stack (slack, irc, ML, ...) I would
bring up some discussion about the noise in the dev ML.
I like to be in dev ML but I am not that interested in notifications
about builds on PR, PR comments, and Jenkins builds.
I am suggest to make a seprate ML for
Sebastien,
So wouldn't it be nice to make clear which release is still supported
and which release is not?
On 03.07.2015 09:20, sebgoa wrote:
I think we got in a situation with 4.4 that called for us to keep maintaining
4.3….and even after 4.5 was released. Because 4.3 was seen as a good
Hi
On 02.07.2015 10:39, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
We need to take a decision here. Shall we officially abandon IRC and out a
notice there that points towards Slack.
-1 for abondon IRC.
* IRC is simple and easy, well known and distributed. Not every question
fits to IRC, thats ok. If it gets
Hi Remi
On 02.07.2015 13:46, Remi Bergsma wrote:
I talked to several people over the past weeks and wrote this wiki article:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+principles+for+Apache+CloudStack
Maybe a little bit off topic to the new release process, therefor a new
thread...
speaking about releases. I just thought about supporting LTS releases.
This would mean someone or we make a commitment to add bug fixes
(only) for a specified time. e.g. 2 years for a release or until the
next LTS
Hi
I started to work on adding project support in affinity groups.
You can see the commits in a PR
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/508.
There is still some work to do like fix current unit test and adding new
unit test and test it generally.
I don't feel I can work on it for the next
Hi
On 25.06.2015 16:38, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
- Only commit through PR will land on master (after a minimum of 2 LGTM and
green Travis results)
- Direct commit will be reverted
- Any committer can merge the PR.
That's the way I used to work. That's fine! :)
One technical benefit is
On 06/17/2015 03:01 PM, Rene Moser wrote:
https://github.com/resmg/ansible-role-cloudstack.
Should be https://github.com/resmo/ansible-role-cloudstack
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi
Paul Angus aleady did some efforts of covering installation of
CloudStack using Ansible in the docs
http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/en/master/ansible.html Thanks!
But there are some issues with styling, it has some parts in it which
are
Hi Seb
On 08.06.2015 21:43, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
We need to freeze 4.6 asap.
Oh boy, you are way too fast :)
How many days will I have to finish
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/264 ?
And a more serious issue: The changes made in
Hi
On 04.06.2015 14:29, Rohit Yadav wrote:
Hi,
On 04-Jun-2015, at 11:05 am, Remi Bergsma rberg...@schubergphilis.com
wrote:
To summarise:
#1. rebooting VR is needed for hypervisors that have their own DR (like
VMware and Hyperv) as a restart outside of CloudStack makes it lose its
Sorry for not answering in the thread, I was not on the dev ML so I
could not reply
I reported this current behavior to be an issue on the user ML and
wanted to ask Koushik Das about his experiences.
I would not agree, in an Vmware environment live migrations, e.g. Vmware
DRS breaks IPtables
Hi
On 03.06.2015 17:06, Ian Southam wrote:
If the machine crashes and/or rebooted during the oob migration by a party
that is not the orchestrator, (read vCenter) then the rules will be lost.
I fully agree, a reboot due a failing live migration, would cause a
reboot. So what? Then we blame
Hi Seb!
Great to see this progress! One little note from the ansible side:
On 19.05.2015 15:38, sebgoa wrote:
4-Ansible
The ansible cloudstack module from Rene Moser is being merged in as a core
Ansible module.
Expect it in Ansible 2.0
There are currently 11 ansible modules [1
Hi
On 15.05.2015 11:27, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
Folks,
As we prepare to try a new process for 4.6 release it would be nice to start
paying attention to master.
- Good commit messages
The question is, what makes a commit message good? Maybe this helps:
Hi Stephan
On 18.05.2015 10:39, Stephen Turner wrote:
In my XenCenter dev team at Citrix, we have the policy of requiring a ticket
number on every commit. If we find a bug and there isn't already a ticket, we
create a ticket before committing the fix. I guess I've just dug through
history
Hi Rohit
On 07.05.2015 15:09, Rohit Yadav wrote:
Hi Rene,
The issue you had reported is reproducible when you have a 4.2.1 or 4.3.2
cloud database but a 4.5.1 or 4.5.0 cloud_usage database, and you try to
upgrade to ACS 4.5.1 that fails for cloud_usage database (since it’s already
or in 4.5.0. I
am
hesitant but a -1 is on the surface of my keyboard.
Op di 5 mei 2015 om 13:03 schreef Rene Moser m...@renemoser.net:
Hi
Tested an update from 4.2.1 to 4.5.1 which failed because of 2
identical
ALTER TABLE statements for cloud_usage in schema-421to430.sql and
schema
Hi
Tested an update from 4.2.1 to 4.5.1 which failed because of 2 identical
ALTER TABLE statements for cloud_usage in schema-421to430.sql and
schema-430to440.sql
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/4.5-RC20150504T1217/setup/db/db/schema-421to430.sql#L787
On 03.03.2015 10:41, Rohit Yadav wrote:
I’m lazy :) — No reason actually, I’ll sign them once we’ve a release. I’ll
perhaps fix my build scripts soon to automatically sign them once they are
built.
Yes, me too :)
That woud be great, so I can stay lazy installing signed debian packages.
Hi Rohit
On 03.03.2015 08:27, Rohit Yadav wrote:
If you're unable to build from source, you may use the following
(unsigned) repository for testing Apache CloudStack 4.5.0 RC4:
Thanks!
I am curious why do you not sign these packages? It makes live a bit
harder for automated testing if Debian
Hi dev
I found an inconsistency, call it a typo, in the API response and would
like to make an API change [1]. I saw there has been a similar change in
the past [2].
Thanks for your response.
Regards
René
[1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/63
[2]
101 - 160 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
