cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Mackey <tmac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: xenserver 6.5
Date Mon, 20 Oct 2014 19:10:17 GMT
Correct on both counts

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
wrote:

> thanks Tim, from this I take that hypervisor versions are hardcoded still,
> and xenserver 6.5 is supported since 4.5. correct?
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Tim Mackey <tmackey@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Daan,
> >
> > Here are the relevant commits:
> >
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2be02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b7f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=674af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Here's an example of the type of DB changes:
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f=setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4cddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=f212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a DB
> > update.
> > >
> > > Can you clarify that?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland <
> daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db
> > changes...
> > > Do
> > > > you have a commit id?
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey <tmackey@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things work
> > > better
> > > > > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues,
> being
> > > able
> > > > > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database
> > update.
> > > > So
> > > > > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the
> various
> > > > > pre-release builds since beta.2).
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > > > > mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer
> > resource
> > > > > class
> > > > > > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't think
you
> > > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of
> XenServer,
> > > then
> > > > > > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle
the
> > > > > > discrepancies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis <
> > > adrian@alsiconsulting.co.uk
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues
> with
> > > > using
> > > > > > 6.5
> > > > > > > when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility
> > > problems,
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly*
told
> > > that
> > > > > > newer,
> > > > > > > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid
> > > hypervisor?
> > > > > > > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of
XS 6.5
> > > when
> > > > it
> > > > > > > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start
> using
> > > it?
> > > > If
> > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would
it
> > > require
> > > > > > > rebuilding?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:Stephen.Turner@citrix.com
> > > > <javascript:;>]
> > > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28
> > > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are
large
> > > > internal
> > > > > > > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage
> > > > datapath,
> > > > > > > PVHVM
> > > > > > > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially
> unchanged.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Stephen Turner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>]
> > > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32
> > > > > > > To: dev
> > > > > > > Subject: xenserver 6.5
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5
or has
> an
> > > > idea
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > how much effort that is going to be?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Daan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > > > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > > > > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > > > > > o: 303.746.7302
> > > > > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > > > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Daan
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > > o: 303.746.7302
> > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>

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