cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthew Midgett" <clouds...@trick-solutions.com.INVALID>
Subject RE: XenServer 6.5
Date Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:14:09 GMT
And where exactly do we stand with this right now? Can I install with ACS 4.5?

-----Original Message-----
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:17 AM
To: dev
Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5

Adrian, I think your questions/considerations are right and I have been wondering about the
same things.
On one side it should be "allowed unless" instead of "only allowed if". On the other hand
therre are sure to be some features extra or some that might have a slightly different semantics
that might hinder or impair cloudstack.
Not sure what the right answer is. Hope that someone with a view on the architectural decisions
behind it can shed some light.

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Adrian Lewis <adrian@alsiconsulting.co.uk> wrote:
> With XS 6.5 released, is anyone able to comment on:
>
> 1. Does the 4.5 branch need updating to support it?
> 2. If the changes are so minor, will we see support in 4.3.x or 4.4.x 
> as well?
>
> Do we consider this to be a feature or bug? If the code for the 
> resource class stays exactly the same and the only thing blocking the 
> use of XS 6.5 is the checks that CS does when adding a new host, would 
> this not be considered as a bug? Technically the validation is broken 
> as its intent is to determine whether or not the current resource 
> class can handle the hypervisor. If the current resource class can in 
> fact handle XS6.5 but the validation code says it can't, isn’t this is a bug?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adrian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Mackey [mailto:tmackey@gmail.com]
> Sent: 20 October 2014 20:10
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5
>
> 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=2
>> b
>> e02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723
>> >
>> >
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b
>> 7
>> f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72
>> >
>> >
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=6
>> 7
>> 4af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59
>> >
>> > 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=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4
>> c 
>> ddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089
>> b
>> 6596127614fe6b8030d723;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
>>



--
Daan


Mime
View raw message