cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ilya <ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: SSLv3 on Apache Cloudstack 4.9.0 RC2
Date Sat, 06 Aug 2016 00:45:25 GMT
Looks more like cloudmonkey 5.3.2 issue - i guess..

I confirmed i'm not serving SSLv3 - which would be Tomcat configuration
issue anyway.

(lab1-ssl) > list zones
Connection refused by server: [SSL: SSLV3_ALERT_HANDSHAKE_FAILURE] sslv3
alert handshake failure (_ssl.c:590)
Error Authentication failed

regards
ilya


On 8/5/16 3:32 PM, ilya wrote:
> Has anyone tested Cloudstack 4.9.0 RC2 with SSL?
> 
> Somehow, in my case tomcat reverted back to SSL v3 on port 8443 - which
> is a big no-no.
> 
> Please kindly check, alternatively if i dont hear from anyone i will
> raise a blocker.
> 
> On 8/3/16 10:39 PM, ilya wrote:
>> Hi Will and Team
>>
>> Can someone point me to upgrade instructions if such exist.
>>
>> Would like to avoid learning through trial and error if possible.
>>
>> I will be testing upgrade and functionality of KVM & VMware Advanced
>> Shared Zones from ACS4.5.2 to latest.
>>
>> Thanks
>> ilya
>>
>> On 7/29/16 11:06 AM, ilya wrote:
>>> Hi Will
>>>
>>> What Remi mentioned sounds reasonable..
>>>
>>> I'll be spending sometime today and next week to test out the issue
>>> reported in 4.8 with VR not starting in Basic Zone - as well latest 4.9..
>>>
>>> i know i'm late to the party - but this is the best i could do :(
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> ilya
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/29/16 9:19 AM, Will Stevens wrote:
>>>> I think everything is up to date and correct now.  Please let me know if
>>>> anything seems out of place (this is the first time I have done this).
>>>>
>>>> I will wait to do an official announcement until Monday in case anything
>>>> comes up.  I will also wait to update the following things until Monday:
>>>> http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html and the release notes (cause
I
>>>> have to finish them).
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if you have questions.
>>>>
>>>> Should I be cutting a 4.8.1 release as well?  Not sure how that works.
>>>> Remi said to do the 4.9.0 release first and then take care of the 4.8.1
>>>> release after.  Ideas?
>>>>
>>>> *Will STEVENS*
>>>> Lead Developer
>>>>
>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
>>>> w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Will Stevens <wstevens@cloudops.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yep, in the process of getting the release cut.  Got side tracked by
>>>>> people a few times, but I am almost finished...  I will keep you posted...
>>>>>
>>>>> *Will STEVENS*
>>>>> Lead Developer
>>>>>
>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
>>>>> w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you Will. Please cut the 4.9 branch so it can be picked for
LTS
>>>>>> release work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll publish the rpm/deb packages in the sb hosted upstream repo
shortly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
>>>>>> www.shapeblue.com
>>>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
>>>>>> @shapeblue
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 7:27 PM +0530, "Will Stevens" <
>>>>>> wstevens@cloudops.com<mailto:wstevens@cloudops.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I did not follow the correct format.  :P
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After 72 hours, the vote for CloudStack 4.9.0 *passes* with 6 PMC
+ 2
>>>>>> non-PMC votes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 (PMC / binding)
>>>>>> * Rohit Yadav
>>>>>> * Mike Tutkowski
>>>>>> * Wido den Hollander
>>>>>> * Milamber
>>>>>> * Nux!
>>>>>> * John Burwell
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 (non binding)
>>>>>> * Paul Angus
>>>>>> * Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 0
>>>>>> none
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -1
>>>>>> none
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks to everyone participating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Will STEVENS*
>>>>>> Lead Developer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
>>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
>>>>>> w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Will Stevens <wstevens@cloudops.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vote is closed.  The RC passed with the following votes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 : 8 (including 6 binding)
>>>>>>> +0 : 0
>>>>>>> -1 : 0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks everyone, I will get this pushed out today...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Will STEVENS*
>>>>>>> Lead Developer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
>>>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
>>>>>>> w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Abhinandan Prateek <
>>>>>>> abhinandan.prateek@shapeblue.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did manual testing with a cluster of Xen 6.5 in advanced
zone.
>>>>>>>> Vm life cycle
>>>>>>>> VM Snapshot, volume snapshots
>>>>>>>> Volume and Template from snapshots
>>>>>>>> Migration
>>>>>>>> Change Password
>>>>>>>> Change service offering
>>>>>>>> VPC, multiple tiers, VMs, ACLs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> -abhi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 29/07/16, 1:43 AM, "John Burwell" <john.burwell@shapeblue.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I vote +1 (binding).  We have tested 4.9.0 RC2 in the
following
>>>>>>>> environments:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       • CentOS 6.8 management server + CentOS 6.8 KVM
Hosts using NFS
>>>>>>>> primary and secondary storage (would allow us to verify/fix
the
>>>>>> documented
>>>>>>>> libvirt/qemu versions)
>>>>>>>>>       • CentOS 6.8 management server + vCenter 5.5u3d
+ ESXi 5.5u3b
>>>>>>>> using NFS primary and secondary storage
>>>>>>>>>       • CentOS 6.8 management server + vCenter 6.0u2
+ ESXi Express
>>>>>>>> Patch 6 using NFS primary and secondary storage
>>>>>>>>>       • CentOS 6.8 management server + XenServer 6.2
SP1 using NFS
>>>>>>>> primary and secondary storage
>>>>>>>>>       • CentOS 6.8 management server + XenServer 6.5
SP1 using NFS
>>>>>>>> primary and secondary storage
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For each environment, we have run the following tests:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       • All smoke tests
>>>>>>>>>       • test_accounts.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_acl_*.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_sharednetwork*.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_add_remove_network.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_advancedsg_networks.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_affinity_groups*.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_cpu_domain_limits.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_cpu_limits.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_cpu_max_limits.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_host_maintenance.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_memory_limits.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_network_offering.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_overcommit.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_persistent_networks.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_ps_domain_limits.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_ps_limits.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_ps_max_limits.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_ps_resize_volume.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_ps_resource_limits_volume.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_resource_limits.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_routers.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_security_groups.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_shared_networks.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_snapshots.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_ss_domain_limits.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_ss_limits.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_ss_max_limits.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_templates.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_update_vm.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_volumes.py
>>>>>>>>>       • test_vpc.py
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> During our tests, we found the following issues, but
do not see any of
>>>>>>>> them as blockers:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       • As Paul and Boris noted, the
>>>>>>>> test_01_create_redundant_VPC_2tiers_4VMs_4IPs_4PF_ACL in
>>>>>>>> test_vpc_redundant.py fails.  We are uncertain as to whether
this
>>>>>> failure
>>>>>>>> is caused by a defect, a problem with the test case, or our
test
>>>>>>>> environment.
>>>>>>>>>       • We have seen NPEs in the log every 10 minutes
attempting to
>>>>>>>> garbage collect a non-existent XenServer volume previously
attached to
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> VR.  While ugly, it is not leaving unused volumes to consume
disk
>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> -John
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> john.burwell@shapeblue.com
>>>>>>>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>>>>>>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
>>>>>>>>> @shapeblue
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Paul Angus <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm getting a pass on KVM for
>>>>>>>> /marvin/test/integration/smoke/test_vpc_redundant.py
>>>>>>>>>> And a FAIL on VMware for the same test, with the
same error.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2016-07-28 04:00:52,133 - CRITICAL - FAILED:
>>>>>>>> test_01_create_redundant_VPC_2tiers_4VMs_4IPs_4PF_ACL: ['Traceback
>>>>>> (most
>>>>>>>> recent call last):\n', '  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/unittest/case.py",
>>>>>>>> line 369, in run\n    testMethod()\n', '  File
>>>>>>>> "/marvin/test/integration/smoke/test_vpc_redundant.py", line
537, in
>>>>>>>> test_01_create_redundant_VPC_2tiers_4VMs_4IPs_4PF_ACL\n
>>>>>>>> self.check_routers_state(1)\n', '  File
>>>>>>>> "/marvin/test/integration/smoke/test_vpc_redundant.py", line
304, in
>>>>>>>> check_routers_state\n    self.query_routers(count, showall)\n',
'  File
>>>>>>>> "/marvin/test/integration/smoke/test_vpc_redundant.py", line
297, in
>>>>>>>> query_routers\n    "Check that %s routers were indeed created"
%
>>>>>> count)\n',
>>>>>>>> '  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/unittest/case.py", line 553,
in
>>>>>>>> assertEqual\n    assertion_func(first, second, msg=msg)\n',
'  File
>>>>>>>> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/unittest/case.py", line 546, in
>>>>>> _baseAssertEqual\n
>>>>>>>> raise self.failureException(msg)\n', 'AssertionError: Check
that 1
>>>>>> routers
>>>>>>>> were indeed created\n']
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Paul Angus
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> paul.angus@shapeblue.com
>>>>>>>>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>>>>>>>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
>>>>>>>>>> @shapeblue
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: williamstevens@gmail.com [mailto:williamstevens@gmail.com]
On
>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Will Stevens
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 28 July 2016 17:24
>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.9.0 RC2
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The teardown issue looks to be environmental.  Apparently
the
>>>>>> network
>>>>>>>> did not get cleaned up before the network service offering
using it was
>>>>>>>> attempted to be deleted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure about the test_vpc_redundent test failure.
 I run that
>>>>>>>> test all the time on KVM and have not been getting that problem.
 Do
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> get the same thing if you run it again in your environment?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Will STEVENS*
>>>>>>>>>> Lead Developer
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
>>>>>>>>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w
cloudops.com *|*
>>>>>> tw
>>>>>>>> @CloudOps_
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Boris Stoyanov
<
>>>>>>>> boris.stoyanov@shapeblue.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi we’ve run: test_vpc_redundant and got :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2016-07-28 16:36:29,959 - CRITICAL - FAILED:
>>>>>> test_05_rvpc_multi_tiers:
>>>>>>>>>>> ['Traceback (most recent call last):\n', '  File
>>>>>>>>>>> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/unittest/case.py", line
369, in run\n
>>>>>>>>>>> testMethod()\n', '  File
>>>>>>>>>>> "/marvin/test/integration/smoke/test_vpc_redundant.py",
line 620,
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> test_05_rvpc_multi_tiers\n    self.check_routers_state()\n',
'
>>>>>> File
>>>>>>>>>>> "/marvin/test/integration/smoke/test_vpc_redundant.py",
line 353,
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> check_routers_state\n    self.fail("Expected
\'%s\' routers at
>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>> \'%s\', but found \'%s\'!" % (expected_count,
status_to_check,
>>>>>>>>>>> cnts[vals.index(status_to_check)]))\n', '  File
>>>>>>>>>>> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/unittest/case.py", line
450, in fail\n
>>>>>> raise
>>>>>>>>>>> self.failureException(msg)\n', "AssertionError:
Expected '1'
>>>>>> routers
>>>>>>>>>>> at state 'MASTER', but found '0'!\n"]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Deleting network offering while in use?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2016-07-28 16:38:41,560 - CRITICAL - EXCEPTION:
>>>>>>>> test_05_rvpc_multi_tiers:
>>>>>>>>>>> ['Traceback (most recent call last):\n', '  File
>>>>>>>>>>> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/unittest/case.py", line
398, in run\n
>>>>>>>>>>> self.tearDown()\n', '  File
>>>>>>>>>>> "/marvin/test/integration/smoke/test_vpc_redundant.py",
line 281,
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> tearDown\n    raise Exception("Warning: Exception
during cleanup :
>>>>>>>> %s" %
>>>>>>>>>>> e)\n', "Exception: Warning: Exception during
cleanup : Execute cmd:
>>>>>>>>>>> deletenetworkoffering failed, due to: errorCode:
431,
>>>>>> errorText:Can't
>>>>>>>>>>> delete network offering 35 as its used by 1 networks.
To make the
>>>>>>>>>>> network offering unavaiable, disable it\n"]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Our setup is centos68 with xen6.2 hosts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> boris.stoyanov@shapeblue.com
>>>>>>>>>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N
4HSUK @shapeblue
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 6:20 PM, Haijiao <18602198181@163.com<mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>> 18602198181@163.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Gents
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone tested RC2 with redudant VR configuration
?  I think there
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> issues not fixed yet, e.g. password server.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9385
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We will test these days and come back.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> abhinandan.prateek@shapeblue.com
>>>>>>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>>>>>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
>>>>>>>> @shapeblue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>

Mime
View raw message