Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A9D80E811 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:05:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 41315 invoked by uid 500); 15 Mar 2013 14:05:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 41165 invoked by uid 500); 15 Mar 2013 14:05:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 41150 invoked by uid 99); 15 Mar 2013 14:05:48 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:05:48 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [74.125.149.211] (HELO na3sys009aog114.obsmtp.com) (74.125.149.211) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:05:40 +0000 Received: from mail-qe0-f70.google.com ([209.85.128.70]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob114.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUUMqnjqvzg0cOmkpeQLvxTOl0CJWf+L5@postini.com; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:05:20 PDT Received: by mail-qe0-f70.google.com with SMTP id a11so5791095qen.9 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:05:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent:x-gm-message-state; bh=HqS67taAmns8T/WOHU0hKBhmCY40qcf88o/EpYxvstc=; b=EVU8K/sSLb3DUOk1VUJV6eCdASLIL7lXBabSmW0+Sfspm71PrIEDFCcDnQNVJV6qa1 sED/Wdbe+QzuFvSNq4t+ZN5KttSCLpRyEJveR5wg4BZ4Ksq3+VlXKPVPFHb0L5btGVbY KyYUqt5xhGKfG6b2zYKLUNv7dloaFhqUtyaR0ngm0x3WsTylDoUIgzICIFkimpo0Qks1 LCVwCaPevTLXIlWiLkr1+XBdcIGoUoO70qkzXiDOLvcJtjMYeTCQy4PG/Xw/x4KkPdCu 1RRRKzkhM6YhRE9CP4ETOphAeBtVgXBgx2IMmJR7T1RAFTL6t3+SROI7aXugVVuk/+FC yrBg== X-Received: by 10.52.96.7 with SMTP id do7mr6002600vdb.115.1363356318342; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:05:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.52.96.7 with SMTP id do7mr6002568vdb.115.1363356317937; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from USLT-205755.sungardas.corp (pool-71-255-100-188.phlapa.east.verizon.net. [71.255.100.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h11sm3760061vdj.12.2013.03.15.07.05.16 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by USLT-205755.sungardas.corp (Postfix, from userid 76098887) id 74A8911CBDE6B; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:05:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:05:07 -0400 From: Chip Childers To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [ACS41]DB comparison (4.1 new installation vs upgrade from 4.0 to 4.1] Message-ID: <20130315140507.GX16726@USLT-205755.sungardas.corp> References: <4FCA39B99132DA4EA70BE3CE408C193D0119F25DB4CC@BANPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FCA39B99132DA4EA70BE3CE408C193D0119F25DB4CC@BANPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkHDtPwJiJhrys9cUM6UYGARmJfVaSCYwmE8rmKfoLX8jbTlJEvLhgU6ShpF0xPk7QBFmTiiPdyTJHrnmhgaY0OlpVPqyVMU1oNi/LjP0qjQPOE43cpW6z04vyCYfG1L6PvF37Umi+pAP73e+P23lvGxZvTyXhcgCatDrPC1aRky1Yv1sYWYr6eawMil02qqiqsLoHI X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 04:40:04PM +0530, Sailaja Mada wrote: > Hi, > > I tried database comparison between 4.1 new installation vs upgrade from 4.0 to 4.1. > > There are 6 tables that are not available with upgraded setup when compare to 4.1 newly installation. > > > 1) data_store_provider > > 2) image_data_store > > 3) nic_secondary_ips > > 4) object_datastore_ref > > 5) user_vm_clone_setting > > 6) vpc_service_map > > Is there any issue with schema update? > > Thanks, > Sailaja.M That certainly sounds like a significant issue. Please open a critical bug.