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] Release Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (sixth round)
Date Mon, 23 Sep 2013 06:36:13 GMT
I think this does have to do with the new default storage plugin. I
think it only affects local storage, as the agent attempts to register
it's local storage pool uuid as a pool with the mgmt server, who says
'sorry, this pool already exists in the database'.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com> wrote:
> +0 (binding), created 4.1.1 zone with vms and a vpc, upgraded to 4.2
> via RPMs. Restarted vpc. Then wiped database and redeployed zone, vms
> to test 4.2 basic functionality. All on CentOS 6.4
>
> The reason for the +0 is that I found a regression when going beyond
> the basic testing and trying things like maintenance mode, I'm not
> sure if it's related to the new storage framework or not, but it
> definitely didn't exist in the previous release. I'm including the bug
> below.  Basically the agent fails to connect to the management server
> on restart because we are trying to register the same pool multiple
> times. We should just check for the pool, match the uuid/properties,
> and say 'success' if it already exists. There is a hokey workaround,
> which is why I'm not going to block, if you stop libvirtd after taking
> the host out of maintenance and wait for the agent to reconnect, then
> you can start libvirtd again and everything will jumpstart into
> action. That can be done in order to complete a successful upgrade,
> and upon deploying a fresh zone I don't think anyone will notice until
> they go to use maintenance mode.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4725
>
> Should be easy to fix, but I'm not going to look at it right this
> second. Maybe Edison can take a peek in the meantime.
>
> Looks like nobody has voted yet, I'm not sure if that means nobody has
> tested over the weekend or if they're being more thorough. If we do
> find that nobody has tested, and decide to fix this, I'd request we
> pull in 39f7ddbb8f7eedb050da2991cdc1fb72a9e97f5f from 4.2-forward as
> well.
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I've created a 4.2.0 release, with the following artifacts up for a vote:
>>
>> Git Branch and Commit SH:
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.2
>> Commit: 69c459342c568e2400d57ee88572b301603d8686
>>
>> List of changes:
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES;hb=4.2
>>
>> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same
>> location):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.0/
>>
>> PGP release keys (signed using 94BE0D7C):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>
>> Testing instructions are here:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+test+procedure
>>
>> Vote will be open for 72 hours (Monday 9/23 PST EOD).
>>
>> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate "(binding)"
with their vote?
>>
>> [ ] +1  approve
>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message