cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <>
Subject Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Date Thu, 16 May 2013 13:53:31 GMT
Our PROD is in 2.2.13, using Advaned Zone and SG enabled.
But we don't use SG features. We use vmWare.
We try to upgrade our pre-production environment to 4.1, but we failed 
due to the CLOUDSTACK-2463 bug.
We have not managed to update 4.0, and we would pass the 4.1.

Le 15/05/2013 21:25, Chip Childers a écrit :
> Adding relevant folks from previous discussions of this feature to the
> CC list.
> One other note...  From what I can tell, the work intended for 4.2 to
> re-enable security groups within an advanced zone is limited to Xen and
> KVM.  I believe that Nicolas (the issue reporter) is using VMware.
> We do have a note from Wei (below) highlighting his desire to see this
> feature as well (although, Wei, what HV are you using?).
> Thoughts on what to do?
> -chip
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 09:20:06AM -0700, Alex Huang wrote:
>> I'm a very strong believer that CloudStack releases should always be upgradable from
previous releases.  We can't strand our user base on a previous release.
>> --Alex
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Wei ZHOU []
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:28 AM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>>> Half of our platforms are on 2.2.14 (advanced zone with security groups).
>>> These platform work well. We are looking for a way to upgrade to 4.* for
>>> more functionalities, so that we do not need to take the difference of
>>> cloudstack version into account in development.
>>> As I know, the citrix guys are working on this. Jessica Wang said the feature
>>> will be merged into master branch soon.It looks the coding is almost done.
>>> I hope this feature could be included in 4.1, of course. However, we also
>>> need some days for testing and bug fix. It means cloudstack 4.1 will delay for
>>> uncertain days (it is very bad, right?). It is a difficult choice.
>>> I do not know how many companies are using 2.2.14  (advanced zone with
>>> security groups) and eager to upgrade. I will join the dev and testing if
>>> needed.
>>> 2013/5/15 Chip Childers <>
>>>> Sebastian re-opened CLOUDSTACK-2463 due to users wanting to upgrade
>>>> from 2.x to 4.1.  This relates to the security groups feature being
>>>> available when using VLANs in an advanced networking zone.  This
>>>> feature was apparently broken in the 3.x series, and is not slated to
>>>> be reintroduced until 4.2.
>>>> This is a horrible situation, and one that we've now encountered for a
>>>> third time.
>>>> IMO, we have 2 very specific options:
>>>> 1) We pull that new feature into 4.1, and do the relevant testing.
>>>> 2) We do not pull that feature into 4.1, and release as is with a
>>>> strong message in the release notes highlighting that we know that 2.x
>>>> to 4.1 will not support it (and state that those users requiring the
>>>> feature should wait for 4.2).
>>>> At this point, I don't have a preference.  We probably need to
>>>> understand the effort for (1), as well as understand who would do that
>>>> work (dev AND testing).
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> -chip

Nicolas Lamirault


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees
et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par
erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant
susceptibles d'alteration,
France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may
be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message
and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

View raw message