cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: XenServer 6.5
Date Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:16:59 GMT
with 4.5 you should be fine

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Matthew Midgett
<cloudstck@trick-solutions.com.invalid> wrote:
> 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
>



-- 
Daan

Mime
View raw message