cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for CLOUDSTACK-2492?
Date Wed, 22 May 2013 15:18:38 GMT
Thanks for the response. Time sync is certainly an issue, I think one
of the things we are trying to gauge is whether the system vm
functionality has been impacted by time sync such that anyone has
noticed or cared.  That's not to detract from the point that having
time sync is optimal, and affects a lot of things, but functionally,
back to my item #1, can we confirm that earlier versions have gotten
out of sync, and if so, do we have bug reports showing that it has
mattered?

  To counter the argument, there are plenty of people looking for the
features in 4.1, that wouldn't choose cloudstack because it's not
released yet. Then there's the delay impact to 4.2, and keeping all of
those features out of the hands of people as well.

 For me, the fear is that we end up pushing 4.1 back to or near where
4.2 would have been otherwise released, at which point we haven't
really accomplished anything but delayed the release of the working
features in 4.1.


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:09 AM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com> wrote:
> Marcus,
>
> 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."
>
> Thanks,
> -John
>
> On May 22, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com> 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 <runseb@gmail.com> 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 <mathias.mullins@citrix.com>
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" <chip.childers@sungard.com> 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] http://markmail.org/message/rw7vciq3r33biasb
>>>>
>>>
>

Mime
View raw message