NFS storage used /
capacity Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Has anyone else seen below behavior with 4.3.0 RC 8?
- with 32 bit system VM, the secondary storage is reported as 0/0
(this is at
the agent level, not a GUI or manager issue)
- with 64 bit system VM
bug is here:
http://imgur.com/FL9OnY0
Thanks,
Florin
-Original Message-
From: Florin Dumitrascu [mailto:florin.dumitra...@intunenetworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 5:11 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Hi,
I am trying
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Florin,
I had a similar issue earlier today.
My solution was to cleanup everything from previous builds - i did not figure
what exactly got corrupted where, but i did have layered installs of ACS4.2.1
-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:57 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
On 17.03.2014 22:39, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
Edison
Thanks for taking care of this issue
On 17.03.2014 22:39, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
Edison
Thanks for taking care of this issue. Nux can you try with this fix
and I will go off building RC
Works for me! Thanks!
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
17, 2014 2:48 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Likitha Shetty; Prachi Damle
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Thanks Sebastien. I had been intending to mail previous committers on the
subdir.
Prachi/Likitha - any comments on https://reviews.apache.org/r/18392
Hi,
I am trying to create an advanced zone using RC8, but I am blocked even from
the first steps.
As seen in the attached image, I cannot select the Hypervisor type from the
drop down box.
Has anyone else seen this behaviour ?
Thanks,
Florin
-Original Message-
From: Animesh
] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Hi,
I am trying to create an advanced zone using RC8, but I am blocked even from
the first steps.
As seen in the attached image, I cannot select the Hypervisor type from the
drop down box.
Has anyone else seen this behaviour ?
Thanks,
Florin
Thanks,
Florin
-Original Message-
From: Florin Dumitrascu [mailto:florin.dumitra...@intunenetworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 5:11 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Hi,
I am trying to create an advanced zone using RC8
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Florin, can you check the output of the following DB query:
Select * from configuration where name=hypervisor.list
On 3/18/14, 10:17 AM, Florin Dumitrascu
florin.dumitra...@intunenetworks.com wrote:
Apologies for the missing link
-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 7:04 AM
To: Animesh Chaturvedi
Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Edison Su
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
On 17.03.2014 22:39, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
Edison
Here is the automation report on this RC:
On XenServer/BVT/Test Run: #1196 #1197
all the failures are test/evn issues related to ssh.
Link to test results:
http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/cloudstack-qa-4.3/job/test-smoke-matrix
-4.3/1196/testReport/
@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
The following change will the be root cause:
-refs = execute(iptables -n -L + brfw + |grep + brfw + | cut
-d \( -f2 | awk '{print $1}').strip()
+refs = execute(iptables -n -L + brfw + | awk
+ '/%s(.*)references
Has anyone else seen below behavior with 4.3.0 RC 8?
- with 32 bit system VM, the secondary storage is reported as 0/0
(this is at the agent level, not a GUI or manager issue)
- with 64 bit system VM, the secondary storage is reported OK.
Environment;
- ACS43RC8, installed from RPM on
-Original Message-
From: Ove Ewerlid [mailto:ove.ewer...@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 9:09 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: 32 vs 64 bit systemvm on 43 and secondary NFS storage used /
capacity Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Has anyone
Before we go to 9th round, let’s get
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6156 resolved.
I’m pretty busy this week, but will see if I can come up with. Just tried doing
a clean awsapi build on a clean AWS instance again and it still fails.
On Mar 12, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Animesh
-Original Message-
From: John Kinsella [mailto:j...@stratosec.co]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:26 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Before we go to 9th round, let's get
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK
John, I am copying Likitha and Prachi who worked on awsapi, maybe they can help
-sebastien
On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:25 PM, John Kinsella j...@stratosec.co wrote:
Before we go to 9th round, let’s get
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6156 resolved.
I’m pretty busy this week,
Thanks Sebastien. I had been intending to mail previous committers on the
subdir.
Prachi/Likitha - any comments on https://reviews.apache.org/r/18392/ would be
appreciated.
On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Sebastien Goasguen
run...@gmail.commailto:run...@gmail.com wrote:
John, I am copying
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
On 15.03.2014 21:18, Sangeetha Hariharan wrote:
In this case , is it possible that when you tried to ping the
instance , the instance had not booted completely?
No, I made sure it's fully booted
-Original Message-
From: John Kinsella [mailto:j...@stratosec.co]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 2:48 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Likitha Shetty; Prachi Damle
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Thanks Sebastien. I had been intending to mail
, March 15, 2014 2:27 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
On 15.03.2014 21:18, Sangeetha Hariharan wrote:
In this case , is it possible that when you tried to ping the
instance , the instance had not booted completely?
No, I
On 17.03.2014 22:39, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
Edison
Thanks for taking care of this issue. Nux can you try with this fix
and I will go off building RC
Animesh,
First thing tomorrow morning (gmt).
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
17, 2014 2:48 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.orgmailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Likitha Shetty; Prachi Damle
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Thanks Sebastien. I had been intending to mail previous committers on the
subdir.
Prachi/Likitha - any comments on https
On 15.03.2014 00:42, Edison Su wrote:
From my test, all the rules got applied. If you stop/start vm, will
the first rule get applied?
Let's for QA team's testing.
Hi Edison,
So I've found out when the first rule doesn't get applied.
Test 1:
I started with
- cloudstack-agent freshly restarted
, the
instance had not booted completely?
Thanks
Sangeetha
-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 4:02 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
On 15.03.2014 00:42, Edison Su wrote:
From my test
On 15.03.2014 21:18, Sangeetha Hariharan wrote:
In this case , is it possible that when you tried to ping the
instance , the instance had not booted completely?
No, I made sure it's fully booted first.
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
On 13.03.2014 21:24, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
[Animesh] Did you see this with prior RC too?
[Animesh] Nux, security group support for advanced zone is limited
and that too was developed in 4.2. I don’t think any changes have been
made to that support since then. Can you call out what specific
On 14.03.2014 12:06, Nux! wrote:
It looks like the traffic doesn't go in the right chains, all traffic
is accepted as FORWARD is set to ACCEPT.
There are zero packets going through BF-breth0-109.
Here's outputs from:
iptables-save: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/85337/47982321/raw/
-1 given the regression in Security Groups for advanced zones.
I was able to duplicate NUX reported issues, e.g., works in ACS421 but
does not work at all in ACS43.
/Ove
On 03/13/2014 01:26 AM, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.3.0 release, with the following artifacts up
It should be noted that my tests use a single IP per VM.
I believe NUX mentioned using multiple IP's.
When SG in advanced zone is enabled, only one NIC can be assigned per VM.
/Ove
On 03/14/2014 02:41 PM, Ove Ewerlid wrote:
On 03/14/2014 01:57 PM, Nux! wrote:
On 14.03.2014 12:06, Nux! wrote:
Did you test on fresh 4.2.1, or upgraded platform?
2014-03-14 14:51 GMT+01:00 Ove Ewerlid ove.ewer...@oracle.com:
It should be noted that my tests use a single IP per VM.
I believe NUX mentioned using multiple IP's.
When SG in advanced zone is enabled, only one NIC can be assigned per VM.
Is this similar to CLOUDSTACK-5144?
2014-03-14 14:57 GMT+01:00 Wei ZHOU ustcweiz...@gmail.com:
Did you test on fresh 4.2.1, or upgraded platform?
On 13.03.2014 18:58, Nux! wrote:
On 13.03.2014 00:26, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.3.0 release, with the following artifacts up for a
vote:
-1
In Adv SG zone assigning secondary IPs to a NIC doesn't update the
ipset accordingly on the agent/hv; it requires
On 14.03.2014 13:59, Wei ZHOU wrote:
Is this similar to CLOUDSTACK-5144?
Yes, but it's only exhibited on KVM.
My colleague who is testing 4.3 with Xenserver is reporting the SG
rules work as expected (though ipset update still requires VM
stop/start).
Lucian
--
Sent from the Delta
Nux and Ove,
Did you test on fresh 4.2.1 platform?
-Wei
2014-03-14 15:07 GMT+01:00 Nux! n...@li.nux.ro:
On 14.03.2014 13:59, Wei ZHOU wrote:
Is this similar to CLOUDSTACK-5144?
Yes, but it's only exhibited on KVM.
My colleague who is testing 4.3 with Xenserver is reporting the SG rules
On 14.03.2014 14:29, Wei ZHOU wrote:
Nux and Ove,
Did you test on fresh 4.2.1 platform?
Yes. Fresh 4.2.1 doesn't have the problem, fresh 4.3 RC8 has the
problem.
HTH
Lucian
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
Can you try to revert commit 175549f3ab952bbd39318c16c269c16526255475
on ./scripts/vm/network/security_group.py ?
git checkout
0898a264a5463b85c4cab3033f9c3161c5ef83f8 ./scripts/vm/network/security_group.py
scp to all hosts, and try again.
-Wei
2014-03-14 15:07 GMT+01:00 Nux! n...@li.nux.ro:
OK, then ignore my previous email. it looks no issue with security_group.py
2014-03-14 15:43 GMT+01:00 Nux! n...@li.nux.ro:
On 14.03.2014 14:29, Wei ZHOU wrote:
Nux and Ove,
Did you test on fresh 4.2.1 platform?
Yes. Fresh 4.2.1 doesn't have the problem, fresh 4.3 RC8 has the problem.
On 14.03.2014 14:43, Wei ZHOU wrote:
Can you try to revert commit 175549f3ab952bbd39318c16c269c16526255475
on ./scripts/vm/network/security_group.py ?
git checkout
0898a264a5463b85c4cab3033f9c3161c5ef83f8
./scripts/vm/network/security_group.py
scp to all hosts, and try again.
Do you happen
On 03/14/2014 03:29 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote:
Nux and Ove,
Did you test on fresh 4.2.1 platform?
Yes, fresh 4.2.1.
/Ove
-Wei
2014-03-14 15:07 GMT+01:00 Nux! n...@li.nux.ro:
On 14.03.2014 13:59, Wei ZHOU wrote:
Is this similar to CLOUDSTACK-5144?
Yes, but it's only exhibited on KVM.
My
On 14.03.2014 14:43, Wei ZHOU wrote:
Can you try to revert commit 175549f3ab952bbd39318c16c269c16526255475
on ./scripts/vm/network/security_group.py ?
git checkout
0898a264a5463b85c4cab3033f9c3161c5ef83f8
./scripts/vm/network/security_group.py
scp to all hosts, and try again.
I got it from
CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
On 13.03.2014 21:24, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
[Animesh] Did you see this with prior RC too?
[Animesh] Nux, security group support for advanced zone is limited and
that too was developed in 4.2. I don’t think any changes have been
made to that support since
On 14.03.2014 19:14, Edison Su wrote:
Hi Nux,
Could you post security group log file on your 4.3 kvm host? The
file is @/var/log/cloudstack/agent/security_group.log
Thanks Edison, but the problem went away once I replaced that python
script with
-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:19 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
On 14.03.2014 19:14, Edison Su wrote:
Hi Nux,
Could you post security group log file on your
-Original Message-
From: Edison Su [mailto:edison...@citrix.com]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:37 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
Sent: Friday
On 14.03.2014 19:36, Edison Su wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:19 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
On 14.03.2014 19:14, Edison Su wrote:
Hi Nux,
Could you post
Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:13 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
On 14.03.2014 19:36, Edison Su wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
Sent
-Original Message-
From: Edison Su [mailto:edison...@citrix.com]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:59 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
The following change will the be root cause:
-refs = execute(iptables -n -L
-Original Message-
From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 2:28 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
-Original Message-
From: Edison Su [mailto:edison
-A FORWARD -i cloudbr0 -j DROP
Animesh, could you cherry-pick it into 4.3?
-Original Message-
From: Edison Su [mailto:edison...@citrix.com]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:59 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
The following change
-Original Message-
From: Edison Su [mailto:edison...@citrix.com]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 2:57 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Add a fix: e5c391fcf3852e50ebd99d4a72fd51d1753b05eb on 4.3-forward
branch.
I do see
On 14.03.2014 21:57, Edison Su wrote:
Add a fix: e5c391fcf3852e50ebd99d4a72fd51d1753b05eb on 4.3-forward
branch.
I do see the rule coming on the kvm host:
-A FORWARD -o cloudbr0 -m physdev --physdev-is-bridged -j BF-cloudbr0
-A FORWARD -i cloudbr0 -m physdev --physdev-is-bridged -j BF-cloudbr0
On 14.03.2014 21:57, Edison Su wrote:
Add a fix: e5c391fcf3852e50ebd99d4a72fd51d1753b05eb on 4.3-forward
branch.
I do see the rule coming on the kvm host:
-A FORWARD -o cloudbr0 -m physdev --physdev-is-bridged -j BF-cloudbr0
-A FORWARD -i cloudbr0 -m physdev --physdev-is-bridged -j BF-cloudbr0
Hi guys,
I'm testing the CS 4.3 RC (8th round), and will keep doing so, but for now I
already did the following and it looks good (sorry for the long email):
* Environment
- Management Server: Debian 7 VM under VirtualBox
- DevCloud: XenServer 6.2
- MySQL: running on the DevCloud
-
+1
2014-03-13 18:27 GMT+08:00 Wilder Rodrigues wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com:
Hi guys,
I'm testing the CS 4.3 RC (8th round), and will keep doing so, but for now
I already did the following and it looks good (sorry for the long email):
* Environment
- Management Server: Debian 7 VM
+1
On 13-Mar-2014, at 4:18 pm, Guo Star ghxand...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
2014-03-13 18:27 GMT+08:00 Wilder Rodrigues wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com:
Hi guys,
I'm testing the CS 4.3 RC (8th round), and will keep doing so, but for now
I already did the following and it looks good (sorry
-
From: Madan Ganesh Velayudham [mailto:madangan...@me.com]
Sent: donderdag 13 maart 2014 11:49
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
+1
On 13-Mar-2014, at 4:18 pm, Guo Star ghxand...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
2014-03-13 18:27 GMT+08:00 Wilder
the Load Balancer on port 80
- Passed
Cheers,
Wilder
-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:dhoogl...@schubergphilis.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 2:03 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Are you guys +1'ing Wilders
this round. I am considering it not changed from previous RCs.
+1 (binding)
-Original Message-
From: Wilder Rodrigues [mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com]
Sent: donderdag 13 maart 2014 5:08
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
Hi all
On 13.03.2014 00:26, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.3.0 release, with the following artifacts up for a
vote:
-1
In Adv SG zone assigning secondary IPs to a NIC doesn't update the
ipset accordingly on the agent/hv; it requires stopping/starting the VM.
It's not a
On 13.03.2014 18:58, Nux! wrote:
On 13.03.2014 00:26, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.3.0 release, with the following artifacts up for a
vote:
-1
In Adv SG zone assigning secondary IPs to a NIC doesn't update the
ipset accordingly on the agent/hv; it requires
-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:41 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
On 13.03.2014 18:58, Nux! wrote:
On 13.03.2014 00:26, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
Hi All
-Original Message-
From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:25 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.3.0 (eighth round)
-Original Message-
From: Nux! [mailto:n...@li.nux.ro
On 13.03.2014 21:24, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
[Animesh] Did you see this with prior RC too?
[Animesh] Nux, security group support for advanced zone is limited
and that too was developed in 4.2. I don’t think any changes have been
made to that support since then. Can you call out what specific
65 matches
Mail list logo
