cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chandan Purushothama <>
Subject RE: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Date Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:55:06 GMT

May I know where are you planning to upload the templates to?

Thank you,

-----Original Message-----
From: Sheng Yang [] 
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <> wrote:
> On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <> wrote:
>>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted alone, 
>>I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole 4.1 
>>release, to avoid confusion.
> As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion. 
> People are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since 
> it is considered experimental.
> I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this 
> stage of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go with 
> the 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks ago, 
> I'd say, 'yeah, probably OK'.

I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would need a template. I stated
so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1.
Thanks to Rohit, we started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine.

But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the issue raised by QA at last

I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in 4.1. Seems nobody cares.
>>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm template 
>>for one release would be tricky I think.
> Yes, but it is experimental.
>>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained 
>>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside 
>>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, tested 
>>enough for default template.
> These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we 
> could use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the 
> apt-get unless some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For example:
>  - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or
>  - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created.

I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or confident.

I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things.

According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's right that people not
quite interested in ipv6.

Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable with updated template.


>>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade 
>>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't 
>>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it again, 
>>Kelven should able to help with it.
>>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers 
>><> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the 
>>>>ipv6  feature is required in which case:
>>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been 
>>>>testing  with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)  
>>>>B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is
>>>>created) to
>>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
>>> I like option A.  We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be 
>>> considered "experimental" in this release anyway.  So if someone 
>>> wants to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little 
>>> more work to get the correct system VM.
>>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
>>> Other thoughts?
>>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <> wrote:
>>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <>
>>>> >> When I first report the bug
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware

>>>> >>of that.
>>>> >
>>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the 
>>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I 
>>>> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version 
>>>> >to
>>>> >4.2
>>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make 
>>>> >it in 4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've 
>>>> >an automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
>>>> >
>>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
>>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the 
>>>> >appliance/template really works [2]
>>>> >
>>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I 
>>>> >would try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 
>>>> >28/2, I really want to see your feature go in 4.1 Since, 4.1 is 
>>>> >frozen, community would have to make an exception to at least 
>>>> >allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used in 
>>>> >case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we 
>>>> >could still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks 
>>>> >before the release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
>>>> >
>>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
>>>> >
>>>> >Regards.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >[1]
>>>> >[2]
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --Sheng
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers 
>>>> >> <> wrote:
>>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama
>>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature 
>>>> >>>>  The

>>>> >>>>system
>>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
>>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am 
>>>> >>>>referring to the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use
>>>>are the
>>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix

View raw message