Re: 2FA

2021-08-10 Thread David Jumani
Hi Rakesh, MFA is generally done via an IAM rather than on a per-application basis. As Simon had mentioned, CloudStack does support SAML / LDAP so, in a general / corporate use case, the MFA would go there. So I do not think adding support for 2FA will add any significant benefit That being

Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack Kubernetes Provider v1.0.0 (RC1)

2021-08-10 Thread Nicolas Vazquez
+1 (binding) based on basic tests - Kubernetes cluster v 1.16.3 Regards, Nicolas Vazquez From: Gabriel Beims Bräscher Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 4:12 PM To: users Cc: d...@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack Kubernetes Provider

Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack Kubernetes Provider v1.0.0 (RC1)

2021-08-10 Thread Gabriel Beims Bräscher
+1 (binding) based on basic checks (GPG, checksum of source code). Em ter., 10 de ago. de 2021 às 10:23, Daan Hoogland escreveu: > checked the compile works and trusting Rohit's package verification > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 1:42 PM David Jumani > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > >

Re: 2FA

2021-08-10 Thread Simon Weller
Rakesh, ACS does support SAML2 and in order to deploy 2FA/MFA, you could integrate it with an Identity and Access Management System such as Keycloak (https://www.keycloak.org/). -Si From: Rakesh Venkatesh Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 4:34 AM To: users ; dev

RE: unsupported: rootdisksize override is smaller than template size

2021-08-10 Thread Yordan Kostov
You are welcome ! -Original Message- From: Piotr Pisz Sent: 10 август 2021 г. 12:46 To: users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: RE: unsupported: rootdisksize override is smaller than template size [X] This message came from outside your organization Yordan, It seems you are right,

Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack Kubernetes Provider v1.0.0 (RC1)

2021-08-10 Thread Daan Hoogland
checked the compile works and trusting Rohit's package verification +1 (binding) On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 1:42 PM David Jumani wrote: > Hi All, > > I've created the initial CloudStack Kubernetes Provider release v1.0.0, > with the following artifacts up for a vote: > > Git Branch and Commit SH: >

RE: unsupported: rootdisksize override is smaller than template size

2021-08-10 Thread Piotr Pisz
Yordan, It seems you are right, sometimes it is enough to ask the question out loud :-) Root disk size (GB) 100 GB Thanks! Regards, Piotr -Original Message- From: Yordan Kostov Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:36 AM To: users@cloudstack.apache.org; pi...@piszki.pl Subject: RE:

RE: slow vm start and dhcp log full?

2021-08-10 Thread Yordan Kostov
Hey everyone, I figured it out. It was a faulty SFP that caused a bottleneck of IOPS so VRs could not write in the log dir which cascaded into DHCP outage. Best regards, Jordan -Original Message- From: Yordan Kostov Sent: 09 август 2021 г. 14:50 To:

RE: unsupported: rootdisksize override is smaller than template size

2021-08-10 Thread Yordan Kostov
May be it has something to do with specific disk offering of size 150 GB? Is there a step in the process where you match the imported VM specs to offerings? Best regards, Jordan -Original Message- From: Piotr Pisz Sent: 10 август 2021 г. 12:28 To: users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject:

2FA

2021-08-10 Thread Rakesh Venkatesh
Hello Has anyone thought about 2FA or about how to implement it in cloudstack? Looks like this will be good addition to enhance the security. I have some idea about implementing in the backend but dont have much idea on how to display the QR code in ui or other functionalities which is needed for

unsupported: rootdisksize override is smaller than template size

2021-08-10 Thread Piotr Pisz
Hello, I am now running a series of VM migrations from vSphere to CloudStack and generally there is no problem with that. >From time to time, after importing the old VM as template, I can't start a new one, I get the following message: unsupported: rootdisksize override is smaller than

Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack Kubernetes Provider v1.0.0 (RC1)

2021-08-10 Thread David Jumani
Hi All, The vote is still open as we need 3 binding +1s Requesting PMCs to please cast their vote From: David Jumani Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 1:55 PM To: users@cloudstack.apache.org ; d...@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack

Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack Kubernetes Provider v1.0.0 (RC1)

2021-08-10 Thread David Jumani
Hi All, Please ignore the previous mail, the voting thread is still open From: David Jumani Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 1:55 PM To: users@cloudstack.apache.org ; d...@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack Kubernetes Provider v1.0.0

Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack Kubernetes Provider v1.0.0 (RC1)

2021-08-10 Thread David Jumani
Hi All, The vote for CloudStack Kubernetes Provider v1.0.0 *passes* with 1 PMC + 2 non-PMC votes. +1 (PMC / binding) 1 person (Rohit) +1 (non-binding) 2 people (Abhishek, Suresh) 0 none -1 none Thanks to everyone participating. I will now prepare the release announcement to go out later

Re: Shrinking RBD volume

2021-08-10 Thread Slavka Peleva
Hi Joshua, I was able to reproduce the same problem with libvirt version 4.5.0 Error 530, org.libvirt.LibvirtException: invalid argument: can't shrink capacity below existing allocation { "accountid": "7e36ad14-f8eb-11eb-909b-02000a02012b", "cmd":

Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack Kubernetes Provider v1.0.0 (RC1)

2021-08-10 Thread Suresh Anaparti
+1 Tested basic deployment for the Traefik ingress controller, using the Kubernetes Provider with the below RC build (Env: ACS main + KVM + K8s Cluster v1.16.3). Regards, Suresh On 04/08/21, 5:12 PM, "David Jumani" wrote: Hi All, I've created the initial CloudStack Kubernetes