Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 14BDA17364 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:21:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 74631 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jan 2015 13:21:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 74582 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jan 2015 13:21:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 74558 invoked by uid 99); 28 Jan 2015 13:21:40 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:21:40 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of t.a.zieba@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.182 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.213.182] (HELO mail-ig0-f182.google.com) (209.85.213.182) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:21:36 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f182.google.com with SMTP id r10so10908938igi.3 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 05:21:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=BqhscMeOL55Vft+g3HfJ0wUoTtAWtIl7vDsIvao4EGw=; b=jCJY61EApvtPU0PA96W75rV5Q+Dzxa2gAsZfv1msvqa4FEnjhgLwBcL9A3/ffXg0fS 9A5Owt3LRsByvVwL3bMEKTlxeyiTFGrmimBErEaO+5spYz4q1INwhGCwj4osI3y4UQ3E Eyc5ZFWhKmWMoOXs8ma0yIWP/C/o3Oi9/fsgWUu0gOlcXVeioFvbRIgPS+eBlnCPFvbk GJLaBcHtYRxugpS5PAQ7FNBkkvZ8+X8AYap69eZeasPcmGFlDzip1f8di6ikY9sbPguv qG5fappk/omnZKgVrO50WKkUNiKWYeQ3kQyyjk7XGI9RsPfbHG/wXw6uJ2JTXDW3RSYs Q5OA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.143.44 with SMTP id sb12mr3477971igb.3.1422451276103; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 05:21:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.15.5 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 05:21:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <2e5001d03afc$50b3bab0$f21b3010$@trick-solutions.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 14:21:16 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: XenServer 6.5 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Tomasz_Zi=C4=99ba?= To: dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134be8c05c6d9050db63f2d X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a1134be8c05c6d9050db63f2d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 : > with 4.5 you should be fine > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Matthew Midgett > 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=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 > >> > >> 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 wrote= : > >>> > >>> > Daan, > >>> > > >>> > Here are the relevant commits: > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=3Dcloudstack.git;a=3Dcommit= ;h=3D2 > >>> b > >>> e02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723 > >>> > > >>> > > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=3Dcloudstack.git;a=3Dcommit= ;h=3Db > >>> 7 > >>> f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72 > >>> > > >>> > > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=3Dcloudstack.git;a=3Dcommit= ;h=3D6 > >>> 7 > >>> 4af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59 > >>> > > >>> > Mike, > >>> > > >>> > Here's an example of the type of DB changes: > >>> > > >>> > > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=3Dcloudstack.git;a=3Dblobdi= ff;f > >>> =3D > >>> setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=3De6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5= a4 > >>> c > >>> ddb5;hp=3D34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=3D2be02d1f515d8= d089 > >>> b > >>> 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 > >>> 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 > >>> > > > ] > >>> > > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28 > >>> > > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >>> > > > > > > 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 > >>> > > ] > >>> > > > > > > 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 > >>> > > > > > *=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 > >>> > > *=E2=84=A2* > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Daan > >>> > > > > > > > > -- > > Daan > > > > > > -- > Daan > --=20 Regards, Tomasz Zi=C4=99ba Twitter: @TZieba LinkedIn: pl.linkedin.com/pub/tomasz-zi=C4=99ba-ph-d/3b/7a8/ab6/ --001a1134be8c05c6d9050db63f2d--