cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrei Mikhailovsky <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC
Date Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:55:27 GMT
I don't mind, but I do hope someone else could verify this apart from me. Even though i've
tried it three times on three different clean installs, I could be doing something wrong.


----- Original Message -----

From: "Abhinandan Prateek" <> 
Sent: Friday, 20 December, 2013 10:47:13 AM 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 

I think at this time we will just document these as known issues. Any 
comments ? 


On 20/12/13 11:42 am, "Pavan Bandarupally" <> 

>In 4.2.1 , I have tested the feature where user has the option to choose 
>single part or multi part upload with S3 store. It worked fine in my 
>environment. The feature works as below: 
>If you have a snapshot or template or anything that needs to be uploaded 
>to S3 based secondary storage, it can be uploaded either by single part 
>upload or multipart upload and what will be used can be dictated by a 
>global setting [s3.singleupload.max.size: The maximum size limit for S3 
>single part upload API(in GB). If it is set to 0, then it means always 
>use multi-part upload to upload object to S3. If it is set to -1, then it 
>means always use single-part upload to upload object to S3 ] 
>I have taken snapshots which were greater/lesser than the size set in the 
>parameter above and they got successfully uploaded to S3 store using 
>multipart/singlepart respectively. The same is the case with templates as 
>Live migration is something that I haven't tested with S3 store but to my 
>knowledge, I don't think it has any relationship with S3 store I guess. 
>Once your VM is deployed from a template on S3 store the template will be 
>first copied to primary store from secondary store for the VM to be 
>-----Original Message----- 
>From: Andrei Mikhailovsky [] 
>Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:20 PM 
>Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 
>Not sure if this is relevant to this release, but the feature list of 
>4.2.0 and 4.2.1 shows that S3 is supported for secondary storage. If this 
>feature is broken and can't be used in production does it not mean that 
>it has to be fixed in the next release? I am not a developer, so I do not 
>really know the criteria for version releases. 
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Daan Hoogland" <> 
>To: "dev" <> 
>Sent: Thursday, 19 December, 2013 3:04:54 PM 
>Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 
>This sounds like a serious issue but not like an issue related to the 
>release. Unless off course you have been able to get it working in 
>4.2.0 and it is now broken. 
>If not it will have to move to a future release. 
>I do not use s3 based secondary storage so I can't verify. 
>On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Andrei Mikhailovsky <> 
>> Not that I want to delay the release even more, but has anyone tested 
>>the S3 Secondary Storage functionality of the 4.2.1? I can't be the only 
>>one with issues. I've tried installing ACS three times and the issue is 
>> Things like migration of vms installed from templates or isos stored in 
>>S3 is not working. 
>> 2013-12-10 18:48:28,067 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent] 
>>(agentRequest-Handler-4:null) Request:Seq 26-349831812: { Cmd , MgmtId: 
>>90520737989049, via: 26, Ver: v1, Flags: 100111, 
>>m":2147483648,"maxRam":2147483648,"arch":"x86_64","os":"Apple Mac OS X 
>>isplayText":"Ubuntu Server 12.04.3 
>>":"cs-secondary","httpsFlag":false,"created":"Dec 10, 2013 3:40:55 
>> 2013-12-10 18:48:28,124 WARN [cloud.agent.Agent] 
>>(agentRequest-Handler-4:null) Caught: 
>> java.lang.ClassCastException: cannot be 
>> cast to at 
>> th( 
>> at 
>> at 
>> est( 
>> at 
>> at$AgentRequestHandler.doTask( 
>> at 
>> at 
>> java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.j 
>> ava:1146) at 
>> java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$ 
>> java:615) at 
>> 2) Spanshoting seems to be totally broken: 
>> - any ROOT volume for any instance is always marked as OVM Hypervisor 
>> (not KVM) which brakes the normal behaviour of the action buttons 
>> filter in scripts/storage.js in the GUI 
>> - the "Volume details" Action Filter functions in scripts/storage.js 
>> lack some conditions for hypervysor and volume type / state 
>> combination 
>> - due to those bugs the GUI doesn't provide Take Snapshot / Recurring 
>>Snapshot buttons for most of the volumes (had to create a DATA volume, 
>>attach it to VM and then detach for Snapshot buttons to appear). 
>> Andrei 
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Daan Hoogland" <> 
>> To: 
>> Sent: Thursday, 19 December, 2013 10:49:33 AM 
>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 
>> H, 
>> We've started running our custom 4.2.1 build 24 hours ago on our 
>>internal projects/employees system. The build is based on the last fix 
>>by Kishan's fix for CLOUDSTACK-5145. The environment is a hybrid 
>>xen/vmware environment with nicira networking and nexenta storage. 
>> No issues have come up so far so: 
>> +1 (binding) 
>> I have done a rebase on the specified commit with a smoke test in a 
>>dev-env and am satisfied with it. 
>> Regards, 
>> Daan 
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: Srikanteswararao Talluri 
>> [] 
>> Sent: woensdag 18 december 2013 9:37 
>> To: 
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 
>> +1 
>> ~Talluri 
>> On 18/12/13 10:57 am, "Sailaja Mada" <> wrote: 
>>>Validated from the specified commit id. 
>>>-----Original Message----- 
>>>From: Abhinandan Prateek [] 
>>>Sent: 17 December 2013 19:19 
>>>To: CloudStack Dev 
>>>Subject: [VOTE] 3rd round of voting for ASF 4.2.1 RC 
>>>The 4.2.1 is re-spun mainly because the commit that was used to 
>>>generate the previous RC did not get pushed to repo. 
>>>Following are the particulars to vote for this time around: 
>>>commit: 1b2b58fe352a19aee1721bd79b9d023d36e80ec5 
>>>List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be 
>>>Source release revision 3911 (checksums and signatures are available 
>>>at the same location): 
>>>PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1): 
>>>Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 20 Dec 2013 End of day PST). 
>>>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) 

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message