Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of daan.hoogland@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.223.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <600edd3e6697550fabee067c546a020c@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAGQtxvasiqL4rPu8_Vp5fOKCBdTAi4N5oRX9A=tL3LupASPZ8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <85B56B1AEDD2674A82DEC8B61E12182911197B8D@AMSPEX01CL01.citrite.net>
 <ee1dad9fc25887f2016714d240a912ab@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACOnxCiCTg0nYqBwRR91h66O9DGTpAmLJ9b4RJpm2y9TCh-uEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJGXtBPSf5tp8mhX16XFfrUqpYPuJ5jeKU6pP2uT4T7RRHEvoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGQtxvY=nQkUQQnYNLuSnu352Nmd_dffLHw6tYzO88JOhqSY=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACOnxCg7UKz7B5Er58nu8a5qQm9bAnwOB7C_tmG6csWKgOHZpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJGXtBNemsK_62vB3N7sCu2EFoRcbtpVuk5tiWgq4_+XzEF3Lg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGQtxvZ_n=JQ327+Fp3e9DgjZsiL=Y71F3wJN=wrnECt-j4Fag@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJGXtBP_mGZ_CU1+Y1TDon3ck77W3odVOcUUU6siSQ5N3fwvGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <600edd3e6697550fabee067c546a020c@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:16:39 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAGQtxvZtdBmyrYTfiAWqf7fER7=1O5rNOua12iAX5RhK__PV9w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5
To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 i=
s
> 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 th=
e
> validation code says it can't, isn=E2=80=99t 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=3Dcloudstack.git;a=3Dcommit;h=
=3D2b
>> e02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723
>> >
>> >
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=3Dcloudstack.git;a=3Dcommit;h=
=3Db7
>> f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72
>> >
>> >
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=3Dcloudstack.git;a=3Dcommit;h=
=3D67
>> 4af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59
>> >
>> > Mike,
>> >
>> > Here's an example of the type of DB changes:
>> >
>> >
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=3Dcloudstack.git;a=3Dblobdiff;=
f=3D
>> setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=3De6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4c
>> ddb5;hp=3D34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=3D2be02d1f515d8d08=
9b
>> 6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=3Df212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268
>> >
>> > 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=3Dplay>*=E2=84=
=A2*
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > 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=3Dplay>*=E2=84=A2*
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>>


--=20
Daan