cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>
Subject Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Date Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:56:47 GMT
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Sheng Yang <sheng@yasker.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> <Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sheng@yasker.org> 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

I meant, 4.2

--Sheng
> issue raised by QA at last minute.
>
> 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.
>
> --Sheng
>
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785
> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387
> [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus=15159
>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>--Sheng
>>>
>>>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
>>><chip.childers@sungard.com> 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" <bhaisaab@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sheng@yasker.org>
wrote:
>>>>> >> When I first report the bug
>>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 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] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> --Sheng
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
>>>>> >> <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
>>>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340.
 The system
>>>>>VM
>>>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/
>>>>>>>>>las
>>>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am
referring to
>>>>> >>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to
use now
>>>>>are the
>>>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix
>>>>>pre-ASF).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>

Mime
View raw message