cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Date Mon, 20 May 2013 19:36:23 GMT
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:50PM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> 
> On May 17, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>
wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.zhou@leaseweb.com)
> >> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On May 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> >> <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> So I am confused looks like Nicolas was not using this feature as it was
not
> >> supported for Vmware  any way so how is upgrade blocked?
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Animesh, I talked with nicolas and the way I understand it is that they had
to
> >> enable SG to set their VLANs in advanced zone the way they needed to.
> >> They actually did not use the SG functionality. Beats me but I don't know
> >> 2.2.14(13)
> > [Animesh>] I am not sure why would SG be needed to set their VLANs in advanced
zone?
> 
> I think only someone with knowledge of 2.2.14 would understand that.
> 
> > If Anthony's patch is available in 4.1 wouldn't it fix the issue or is it that upgrade
gets stuck in intermediate step during upgrade to 4.0?
> 
> I don't know. My understanding is that Anthony's patch won't be usable for vmware hypervisor.

So we are at a bit of an impasse here, and I'm not sure that we have
figured out what our options might even be.

Here's the situation:

We have people stuck on 2.x right now that were using SG's within
Advanced Zones.  That feature seems to have been dropped from the code
from before CloudStack was in the ASF.  We have work in-progress for 
4.2 to make that feature a feature again.  The 4.2 work does *not*
include VMware environments.

We have some decisions to make:

Decision 1: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until the work in 
progress is complete for Xen and KVM (and tested)?

Decision 2: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until *both* the
Xen/KVM implementation and a VMware implementation exist?

Decision 3: Do we solve the VMware upgrade path by ensuring that the
right DB bits exist to transition an installation from 2.x to 4.1 in a
way that drops SG support in advanced zones using Vmware HVs?

Decision 4: Do we keep people in this situation stranded on 2.x?

I'm personally frustrated that we have users stuck on 2.x right now.
This is happened to us a couple of times since the project came to
Apache, where the community has found out that something was dropped or
effectively eaten away by "bit rot".  I am, however, thankful that we are
able to make decisions about features health as a community going forward.

I'd appreciate if others can bring their ideas / thoughts to this thread
so that we can move forward.  I'm asking for tactical ideas here...  If
I'm not clear on the issues as stated so far, correct me please.

If I don't hear anything over the next day or so, I'm going to 
start a VOTE thread to accept the current state of things as is for 4.1
and move forward with a 4.1 release.  This is not my preference, but 
without specific suggestions to resolve the problem, there isn't much else 
I can see doing get past our current impasse.

-chip

Mime
View raw message