cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rajani Karuturi <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack - RC2
Date Thu, 11 May 2017 04:40:35 GMT
Thanks for testing Mike.


Any other additions?

~ Rajani

On May 10, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
( wrote:

I've been running regression tests against the release candidate.

So far, all tests but one have passed.

The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It
looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this
thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for
managed storage in a particular situation.

As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.

I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.

I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to
this thread.

On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <>

I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before
RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.

If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections,
can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.

~ Rajani

On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (

Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens

Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
with basic
networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
noticeable when
you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?

Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
The VR is utterly slow in doing that.

It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.

In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.

What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
is not in 4.10.

However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.


On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <>


I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
4.10 would
be a problem due to the VR performance.

A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any

Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly


Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi

Hi All,

I've created a release, with the following artifacts up
for a


Git Branch and Commit SH:;a=commit;h=



Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the

PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):

Vote will be open for 72 hours.

For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure


"(binding)" with their vote

[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, 7-Bit, 0 bytes)
View raw message