cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexey Zilber <alexeyzil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm.
Date Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:47:33 GMT
Good for you James.  CS 3.0.2 is quite full of bugs, which is very evident
when looking at the Citrix bug list.  A lot of them are fixed in CS 3.0.3 I
believe, but we probably won't be seeing that till it's out of incubator
status.

I disagree completely with your definition of 'very stable'.   I know
everyone has a different config, but some of the advertised features are
definitely pre-alpha (local storage support case and point).

-Alex

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:28 PM, James Kahn <jkahn@idea11.com.au> wrote:

> Alexey sounds like a troll to me.
>
> We find the CS 3.x series very stable and it performs exceptionally well.
> Yes, there are some bugs, but so far those have been reasonably minor.
> That's what you get for being close to the cutting edge.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tamas Monos <tamasm@veber.co.uk>
> Reply-To: "cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org"
> <cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org>
> Date: Friday, 22 June 2012 9:28 PM
> To: "cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org"
> <cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm.
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'm using CS 3.0.2 with vSphere 4.1 update1 (paid ESX not ESXi).
> >I have a single cluster with two nodes and shared ISCSI storage and very
> >happy with it.
> >Personally would recommend against local storage as I have noticed vmware
> >can be very slow using its local hard drive for VM storage as many VM
> >chewing the same disk is painful.
> >Also you will not have failover without a shared storage.
> >Even if you are tight on budget you could put together an NFS or ISCSI
> >server with a 10-15 disk raid.
> >
> >Could you let us know what do you mean "that really seems to mess it up,
> >is enabling local storage. This tends to just make things horribly
> >unstable"? Or point me to the bugs you are referring to?
> >What is unstable? Do you get exceptions? Can't you deploy VMs?
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Tamas Monos                                               DDI
> >+44(0)2034687012
> >Chief Technical                                             Office
> >+44(0)2034687000
> >Veber: The Hosting Specialists               Fax         +44(0)871 522
> >7057
> >http://www.veber.co.uk
> >
> >Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/veberhost
> >Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/veberhost
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Alexey Zilber [mailto:alexeyzilber@gmail.com]
> >Sent: 22 June 2012 11:30
> >To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> >Subject: Re: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm.
> >
> >Hi Tamas,
> >
> >   I'm probably stuck with 3.0.2 for now since I decided to use vSphere 5
> >(instead of the KVM install I just had).  Many of the issues I've had are
> >actually documented bugs, but since the project is somewhat in limbo I
> >don't know how long we have to wait.   I've been installing and
> >re-installing in different configs CS 3.0.2 for about a week now, and
> >finally got it to a sweet spot where it would run just fine with a single
> >hypervisor.
> >  One of the things that really seems to mess it up, is enabling local
> >storage.   This tends to just make things horribly unstable.   I just blew
> >away my current setup of XenServer+KVM and am going to do another attempt
> >(But with XenServer and vSphere) with local storage (since both are
> >purported to support local storage).
> >  I'm sure 3.0.2 runs just fine once it's setup and it's working, but I
> >just find it very disturbing that one small change can throw the whole
> >system.  I'd be very worried in using it production.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Alex
> >
> >On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Tamas Monos <tamasm@veber.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I think 3.0.2 is not pre-alpha by far. I can easily run a production
> >> environment on it with billing integration and customers are happy.
> >> Nothing is perfect ever but there is always a workaround. If you could
> >> describe what is unusable or blows up we might be able to help.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Tamas Monos                                               DDI
> >> +44(0)2034687012
> >> Chief Technical                                             Office
> >> +44(0)2034687000
> >> Veber: The Hosting Specialists               Fax         +44(0)871 522
> >> 7057
> >> http://www.veber.co.uk
> >>
> >> Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/veberhost Follow us on Facebook:
> >> www.facebook.com/veberhost
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Alexey Zilber [mailto:alexeyzilber@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: 22 June 2012 02:33
> >> To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm.
> >>
> >> That's a funny place for it to show up, imho.  It's a system vm.  I'm
> >> pretty sure when I was using the Xen hypervisor it was showing up
> >> under system vm's.  Then again, the 3.x branch is so pre-alpha I don't
> >> know where stuff will show up anymore.
> >>
> >> Any news on when the incubator project is going to be ramped up?
> >> 3.0.2 is essentially unusable.  Just adding another hypervisor to the
> >> mix causes it to blow up.  I did notice a ton of bug fixes, but those
> >> won't show up in any builds till the incubator project is up and
> >>running I'm guessing.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Alex
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Alexey Zilber [mailto:alexeyzilber@gmail.com]
> >> > > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 5:14 PM
> >> > > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > Subject: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm.
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi All,
> >> > >
> >> > >   This looks like a bug in CS 3.0.2.  I did a clean install.
> >> > > Everything is
> >> > > on Centos 6.2.  Installed KVM as the first hypervisor in the
> >>cluster.
> >> > >  Launched an instance.  virsh reports:
> >> > >
> >> > > [root@kvm1 init.d]# virsh list
> >> > >  Id Name                 State
> >> > > ----------------------------------
> >> > >   1 s-1-VM               running
> >> > >   2 v-2-VM               running
> >> > >  * 3 r-4-VM               running*
> >> > >   4 i-2-3-VM             running
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > #3 above is the system router vm.  It does not show up under
> >> > > 'system vm'
> >> >
> >> > Router VM should not be shown up under "system vm". It should be
> >> > under "zone->network->"
> >> >
> >> > > under the Zones. (#1 and #2 do).   This is concerning because when
I
> >> > > used
> >> > > Xen, it reported it correctly.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Alex
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>

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