cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tomasz Zięba <t.a.zi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: XenServer 6.5
Date Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:21:16 GMT
small issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8175

but in general it works fine

2015-01-28 14:16 GMT+01:00 Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>:

> 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
>



-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Zięba
Twitter: @TZieba
LinkedIn: pl.linkedin.com/pub/tomasz-zięba-ph-d/3b/7a8/ab6/
<http://pl.linkedin.com/pub/tomasz-zi%C4%99ba-ph-d/3b/7a8/ab6/>

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