Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 064B4F67D for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 03:04:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 27827 invoked by uid 500); 28 Mar 2013 03:04:38 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 27205 invoked by uid 500); 28 Mar 2013 03:04:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 27146 invoked by uid 99); 28 Mar 2013 03:04:34 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 03:04:34 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of shadowsor@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.180 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.220.180] (HELO mail-vc0-f180.google.com) (209.85.220.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 03:04:28 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id m17so7055335vca.25 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:04:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=RjsjpNdtwsM4+FuxDlsXc5N15zrsjdPfMQ9WG64JEfg=; b=oFZqpFI95jgpBF97ljBHvBKw6CLDhbTfw3JC0BPWPDFNcAFdX+QNPOAzx1eScsR7ZK Ahk9w00n1pWOnPAFD9A6VnSm+bWn9lWCI13APHbv0yD7KiN+TrTHy3/4NMEWaF6Nbgr5 LSbMaun3aUdHy3eJhrlHRWSh+86RgdwqEo/apzsNubOZ+92O+5XY3klPmhGiDUcClSGD oHoY2YiSRIq1/c9u3yZeB0nTRuehprqTLk89boLDbRTm78pfDLgWgE5BgNJLI8vU7p2A iCgp+mAGFhVvV3VnZNgD66+NRZPMMribYqxzqnNvBVvvYwof0SW2xyAny/yeucilCrS9 4JSA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.177.163 with SMTP id cr3mr22053237vdc.94.1364439847430; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.181.132 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.181.132 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:04:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <7914B38A4445B34AA16EB9F1352942F101435C4F132D@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> <44B61608130E8C44ABA956373E8251DD027AEF@SINPEX01CL03.citrite.net> <7914B38A4445B34AA16EB9F1352942F101435C71FFBF@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> <6E004C34C1C59E45A35B4338808BC31501445CCC1542@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> <20130328021612.GM53904@USLT-205755.sungardas.corp> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:04:07 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [ACS41][QA] Has anyone upgraded from 4.0 to 4.1 From: Marcus Sorensen To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Sangeetha Hariharan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3071cc966c71fc04d8f3683e X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --20cf3071cc966c71fc04d8f3683e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 There are two things, upgrade of system VM, and upgrade of software on system VM. Any time you start a system VM the latest scripts get copied to it. This isn't the same as using the new ipv6 template. I can understand needing to reboot the system VMS if the scripts change, but its not the same as upgrading the OS in the system VM. On Mar 27, 2013 8:59 PM, "David Nalley" wrote: > >> Deploying Vms in existing networks succeed. But Vms are not given any > ip address. > >> In router, I see that the mac address of the Vm is not populated > correctly. > >> root@r-4-VM:~# cat /etc/dhcphosts.txt > >> 02:00:42:47:00:01,set:10_1_1_17,10.1.1.17,test123,infinite > >> -4,set:10_1_1_195,10.1.1.195,-m,infinite > >> root@r-4-VM:~# > >> > >> After stopping and starting of the existing routers , Vm deployment > succeeds. > >> > >> Seems like all the routers need to be stopped and started after upgrade. > > > > Forgive the question, but I actually haven't upgraded a production > > environment yet! Is this normal to have to restart the VR's after a > > major update? I *think* I remember that this is, but I just want to > > confirm. > > > > So it's expected if we change the sysvms materially - but I would have > expected them to have continued working. > That said, I thought update of sysvms was optional and only necessary > if you wanted IPv6-enabled system VMs. > Can someone canonically answer this? Things like this will affect > install documentation. > --20cf3071cc966c71fc04d8f3683e--