cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Burwell <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?
Date Wed, 22 May 2013 15:09:17 GMT

For me, S3 integration and Xen feature parity are not the primary reasons that this defect
should remain a blocker.  Time synchronization is a basic and essential assumption for systems
such as CloudStack.  This defect yields file and log timestamps from secondary storage that
are unreliable -- impacting customers in an accredited environment (e.g. SOX) or that rely
on those timestamps for any downstream operations.  It also stands as a significant impediment
to operational debugging.  Additionally, as others have pointed out, time drifts also impact
encryption, and possibly handshake operations between the systems VMs and management server.
 While I appreciate and fully support a time-based release cycle, there has to be a quality
threshold for any release.  Looking at it from an operations perspective, failure to maintain
time sync across components is unacceptable.   Assuming I used Xen, I ask myself, "Would I
deploy a 4.1.0 if the known issues list stated that the system VMs could not maintain time
sync?", and, without hesitation, I would answer, "No.", and follow it up quickly, "Oh no,
I hope the release I have in production doesn't have this problem."


On May 22, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Marcus Sorensen <> wrote:

> I feel like we need to clarify what's at risk here. Not to disrespect
> anyone's opinion, but I'm just not getting where this is being
> considered a major feature.  I think the very idea of Xen not having
> feature parity (regardless of the feature) is distasteful to a lot of
> us, and it should be. But consider that we are already two months
> behind on a four month release cycle, and it sounds like fixing this
> could take a month (if no issues are found, two weeks to qual the new
> template). We run a time-based release, not a feature-based release.
> Not all features are expected to be fully functional to get out the
> door. Isn't the correct option to just mark the feature experimental,
> tell them to run the newer template at their risk if they want it?
> 1) We need to verify whether this bug has been around for a long time,
> because it will tell us how much it really matters and thus whether or
> not it's a blocker. This addresses the 'timestamp of logs" and other
> issues not related to new features.
> 2) We need to reiterate exactly what features are being affected. The
> original e-mail lists 'S3 integration' as the only feature affected.
> As far as I understand it, the actual feature impacted is a 'secondary
> storage sync', if you have multiple zones, multiple secondary
> storages, this backs up and handles the copying of templates, etc so
> you don't have to manually register them everywhere.
> I appreciate John's work for getting that secondary storage sync
> feature in place. I really wish we would have noticed the issue
> earlier on, then we may not be having this discussion. That said, no
> disrespect intended toward John, I'm having a hard time understanding
> how this is a feature worth holding up the release. It's not a new
> primary or secondary storage type integration, and it's not a feature
> where the admin is helpless to do it themselves. If VPC doesn't work,
> the admin can't do anything about it. If this sync doesn't work, the
> admin writes a script that copies their stuff everywhere.
> Please, if anyone considers this a major feature worth blocking on,
> explain to us why. Are you willing to push back release of all of the
> other new features, and push back the 4.2 features, to have this one
> feature in June, or whenever 4.1 gets out?
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <> wrote:
>> +1 on moving forward.
>> On this issue and on the upgrade issue I have realized that we forgot about our time
based release philosophy.
>> There will always be bugs in the software. If we know them we can acknowledge them
in release notes and get started quickly on the next releases.
>> To keep it short, I am now of the opinion (and I know I am kind of switching mind
here), that we should release 4.1 asap and start working on the bug fix versions right away.
>> If we do release often, then folks stuck on a particular bug can expect a quick turn
around and fix of their problems.
>> -sebastien
>> On May 22, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Mathias Mullins <> wrote:
>>> -1 on this.
>>> New features really should be across the board for the Hypervisors. Part
>>> of the thing that distinguishes ACS is it's support across Xen / VMware /
>>> KVM. Do we really want to start getting in the habit of pushing forward
>>> new features that are not across the fully functional hypervisors?
>>> I agree with Outback this also will start to affect the Xen/XCP community
>>> by basically setting them apart and out on what a lot of people see as a
>>> major feature.
>>> I think it sets a really bad precedent. If it was Hyper-V which is not
>>> fully functional and not a major feature-set right now, I would be +1 on
>>> this.
>>> MHO
>>> Matt
>>> On 5/20/13 4:15 PM, "Chip Childers" <> wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>> As discussed on another thread [1], we identified a bug
>>>> (CLOUDSTACK-2492) in the current 3.x system VMs, where the System VMs
>>>> are not configured to sync their time with either the host HV or an NTP
>>>> service.  That bug affects the system VMs for all three primary HVs (KVM,
>>>> Xen and vSphere).  Patches have been committed addressing vSphere and
>>>> KVM.  It appears that a correction for Xen would require the re-build of
>>>> a system VM image and a full round of regression testing that image.
>>>> Given that the discussion thread has not resulted in a consensus on this
>>>> issue, I unfortunately believe that the only path forward is to call for
>>>> a formal VOTE.
>>>> Please respond with one of the following:
>>>> +1: proceed with 4.1 without the Xen portion of CLOUDSTACK-2492 being
>>>> resolved
>>>> +0: don't care one way or the other
>>>> -1: do *not* proceed with any further 4.1 release candidates until
>>>> CLOUDSTACK-2492 has been fully resolved
>>>> -chip
>>>> [1]

View raw message