cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nux! <...@li.nux.ro>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS)
Date Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:29:21 GMT
Paul,

Ok, let me play some more with those tunings params, see if I can find a satisfactory combination
and I'll withhold a -1 on this on the basis that I've just misunderstood the whole thing.
:)

Thanks

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Angus" <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
> To: "users" <users@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Cc: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 January, 2018 19:55:01
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS)

> Hey Nux,
> 
> There is quite a bit of tuning you can do, to speed or slow CloudStack's
> decision making, but we need to be sure that when we lose contact with a host
> agent, that the VMs themselves really are dead.  By default host-ha is set to
> be super sure.
> 
> There are various timeouts which can be configured to decide how long to wait
> for a host to restart before deciding that it is not going to start as well as
> how many times we should check for disk activity from the resident VMs of a
> suspect host.
> 
> The parameters are detailed here.
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Host+HA
> 
> Honestly, the aim of Host HA was to fix the particular issue that you are
> describing as we can't remember a time when it did work reliably.
> 
> 
> 
> paul.angus@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nux! [mailto:nux@li.nux.ro]
> Sent: 23 January 2018 19:08
> To: users <users@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Cc: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS)
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> To be honest I do not remember when I last saw this, as I have not been testing
> ACS in 2017.
> You'd kill a HV, the VMs would pop up on another after a few minutes.
> 
> Even with Host HA, the VMs remain down until the hypervisor is back up,
> restarted by OOBM - however if that HV has suffered a HW fault and needs to be
> removed, then those VM will be down for a long time ...
> 
> Unless I got things quite wrong, (VM) HA - one of the big selling points of ACS
> - is essentially broken?
> 
> --
> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
> 
> Nux!
> www.nux.ro
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Paul Angus" <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
>> To: "users" <users@cloudstack.apache.org>, "dev"
>> <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 January, 2018 16:02:54
>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS)
> 
>> Hi Nux,
>> 
>> When have you seen the VMs on KVM behaving in the manner which you are
>> expecting?  I recall it didn’t work that way in the mid 4.5 versions
>> (we found out the hard way in front of a customer) and it doesn't
>> behave the way you are expecting 4.9 - I've just tested it.
>> 
>> You need host-ha enabled to get reliable HA in the event of a host
>> crash, that is why we developed the host ha feature.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Paul Angus
>> 
>> paul.angus@shapeblue.com
>> www.shapeblue.com
>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nux! [mailto:nux@li.nux.ro]
>> Sent: 23 January 2018 15:06
>> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Cc: users <users@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS)
>> 
>> Rohit,
>> 
>> I'll also have to insist with the VM HA issue.
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-10246
>> 
>> Lucian
>> 
>> --
>> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>> 
>> Nux!
>> www.nux.ro
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Rohit Yadav" <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com>
>>> To: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, "users"
>>> <users@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 January, 2018 14:28:34
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS)
>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Given we've outstanding blockers and PRs in review/testing, I'll cut
>>> RC2 only after we manage to get them reviewed, tested and merged.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The outstanding PRs considered for RC2 are:
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2418 (Properly parse rules
>>> for security groups)
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2419 (Password server
>>> issue)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In addition we've following issues to receive fixes:
>>> 
>>> - VR - DHCP/dnsmasq leases issue (reported by Ozhan)
>>> 
>>> - Dynamic roles upgrade fixes:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-10249
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please share any other issues you've found, or I've missed. Thanks,
>>> and continue testing RC1.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - Rohit
>>> 
>>> <https://cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 11:18:27 AM
>>> To: Paul Angus; users@cloudstack.apache.org;
>>> dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS)
>>> 
>>> The same issue applies to any 4.9, 4.10 release. In case of 4.9, we
>>> had discussed this as a doc bug and so it must be documented part of
>>> the 4.11 release notes as well.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> There are two ways admin can migrate to dynamic roles post-upgrade:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  1.  Enable dynamic.apichecker.enabled to true which will use the
>>> default api  mapping of rules from 4.8 commands.properties and
>>> automatic annotation based  and (db-backed) dynamic rules from 4.9+.
>>> Or,
>>> 
>>>  2.  The migration script is only useful where admins were not using
>>> the default  api rule mappings and they strictly want to
>>> check/migrate each API. This  approach requires admins to go through
>>> new APIs and fix commands.properties  before running the migration
>>> scriopt (we've been sharing the new/change API  list in release notes, for
>>> example:
>>>  http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-release-notes/en/4.9.3.0/api-changes.html#new-api-commands).
>>>  (for reference, doc:
>>>  
>>> http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-administration/
>>> e
>>> n/latest/accounts.html#using-dynamic-roles)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Unlike the dynamic API checker, the static checker does not even
>>> allow the root API to access all the APIs which is why post upgrade,
>>> if the UI calls any API that is not allowed for the root admin (in
>>> this case the quotaIsEnabled API) the UI will logout the user on API
>>> unauthorized failure which is what happened.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So, we can discuss two fixes:
>>> 
>>> - Like dynamic checker, let the static checker allow all APIs only to
>>> the root admin (id=1) (I would not prefer to change the legacy
>>> behaviour though)
>>> 
>>> - During upgrade, if commands.properties is missing we set the global
>>> setting to true, i.e. switch to dynamic roles (which would happen if
>>> someone tries to upgrade from 4.5->4.11 using a new mgmt server if
>>> they fail to copy the commands.properties file from /usr/share or /etc paths).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - Rohit
>>> 
>>> <https://cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> 
>>> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
>>> www.shapeblue.com
>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Paul Angus
>>> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 9:24:25 AM
>>> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Cc: Rohit Yadav; dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Daan Hoogland
>>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS)
>>> 
>>> If I've understood the issue correctly, "not being able to log in if upgrading
>>> from 4.5" is a blocker in my book.   I don't think that it should be the duty
>>> of the Admin, to fix our oversights.  Migration to the use of dynamic
>>> roles is also broken as the command will be missing from
>>> commands.properties in the first place, so the 'migrated' commands
>>> will not be complete.
>>> 
>>> As there will need to be an RC2, IMO this upgrade issue should be
>>> fixed as part of it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> 
>>> Paul Angus
>>> 
>>> 
>>> VP Technology
>>> paul.angus@shapeblue.com
>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Boris Stoyanov [mailto:boris.stoyanov@shapeblue.com]
>>> Sent: 22 January 2018 07:31
>>> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Cc: Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com>;
>>> dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Daan Hoogland
>>> <daan.hoogland@shapeblue.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS)
>>> 
>>> Hi Paul,
>>> Migration script considers only what’s in the command.properties
>>> file, so if the ‘missing’ quotaIsEnabled=15 is not there it will not
>>> create a rule for it. As Rohit mentioned it’s a duty of the admin to
>>> take care of aligning this up. I’m also not big fan of having this
>>> described in release notes, but would like to be included
>>> automatically during upgrade. Main argument against it, its not a blocker.
>>> 
>>> Bobby.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> boris.stoyanov@shapeblue.com
>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 19 Jan 2018, at 19:04, Paul Angus <paul.angus@shapeblue.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OK, just to confirm ‘we’ the community have basically deprecated the
>>>> use of commands.properties?
>>>>
>>>> But for people upgrading from a version before dynamic roles,  does
>>>> the migration script take into account (or need to take into
>>>> account) the ‘missing’
>>>> quotaIsEnabled=15 parameter?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> paul.angus@shapeblue.com
>>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Rohit Yadav
>>>> Sent: 19 January 2018 09:27
>>>> To: users <users@cloudstack.apache.org>; dev@cloudstack.apache.org;
>>>> Paul Angus <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Bobby,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agree, it's not user-friendly which is why admins should migrate to
>>>> the dynamic roles feature. But I'm not sure if this is a blocker and
>>>> if an admin wants to stick to the old static (commands.properties)
>>>> way, they need to manage changes themselves. We may add something to
>>>> the release notes /cc @Paul Angus<mailto:paul.angus@shapeblue.com>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Rohit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Software Architect
>>>> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com<mailto:rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com>
>>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Boris Stoyanov
>>>> <boris.stoyanov@shapeblue.com<mailto:boris.stoyanov@shapeblue.com>>
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 2:51:32 PM
>>>> To: users
>>>> Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS)
>>>>
>>>> Hi Rohit,
>>>>
>>>> That doesn’t sound much user friendly what do you think? Can we look
>>>> for a way to automate this dependency in the upgrade process?
>>>>
>>>> Bobby.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> boris.stoyanov@shapeblue.com<mailto:boris.stoyanov@shapeblue.com>
>>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 19 Jan 2018, at 10:50, Rohit Yadav
>>>>> <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com<mailto:rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com>>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Bobby,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I checked the 4.5-4.11 upgrade environment, due to the nature of
>>>>> how static checker with commands.properties work, admins will be
>>>>> required to add/update new API/ACLs in the commands.properties file.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding the following to commands.properties file and restarting
>>>>> mgmt server fixes the issue:
>>>>>
>>>>> quotaIsEnabled=15
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please continue testing, thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Rohit
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Boris Stoyanov
>>>>> <boris.stoyanov@shapeblue.com<mailto:boris.stoyanov@shapeblue.com>>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 6:54:28 PM
>>>>> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:users@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>> Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.11.0.0 (LTS)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I’ve hit a blocker when upgrading to 4.11
>>>>>
>>>>> Here’s the jira id:
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-10236
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ve upgraded from 4.5 to 4.11, then I’ve logged in with admin and
>>>>> got session expired immediately.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Boris Stoyanov
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> boris.stoyanov@shapeblue.com<mailto:boris.stoyanov@shapeblue.com>
>>>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com<mailto:rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com>
>>>>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
>>>>> @shapeblue
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17 Jan 2018, at 8:42, Tutkowski, Mike
>>>>> <Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com<mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com<mailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com%3cmailto:Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> For the past couple days, I have been running the KVM managed-storage
>>>>> regression-test suite against RC1.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the exception of one issue (more on this below), all of these tests
have
>>>>> passed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tomorrow I plan to start in on the VMware-related managed-storage tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once I’ve completed running those, I expect to move on to the XenServer-related
>>>>> managed-storage tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> I ran these XenServer and VMware tests just prior to RC1 being created,
so I
>>>>> suspect all of those tests will come back successful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, with regards to the one issue I found on KVM with managed storage:
>>>>>
>>>>> It relates to a new feature whereby you can online migrate the storage
of a VM
>>>>> from NFS or Ceph to managed storage.
>>>>>
>>>>> During the code-review process, I made a change per a suggestion and
it
>>>>> introduced an issue with this feature. The solution is just a couple
lines of
>>>>> code and only impacts this one use case. If you are testing this release
>>>>> candidate and don’t really care about this particular feature, it should
not at
>>>>> all impact your ability to test RC1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 15, 2018, at 4:33 AM, Rohit Yadav
>>>>> <rohit@apache.org<mailto:rohit@apache.org<mailto:rohit@apache.org%3cmailto:rohit@apache.org>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've created a 4.11.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up for
>>>>> testing and a vote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Git Branch and Commit SH:
>>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.11.0.0-RC20180115T1603
>>>>> Commit: 1b8a532ba52127f388847690df70e65c6b46f4d4
>>>>>
>>>>> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same
>>>>> location):
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.11.0.0/
>>>>>
>>>>> PGP release keys (signed using 5ED1E1122DC5E8A4A45112C2484248210EE3D884):
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate
>>>>> "(binding)" with their vote?
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1  approve
>>>>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>>>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>
>>>>> Additional information:
>>>>>
>>>>> For users' convenience, I've built packages from
>>>>> 1b8a532ba52127f388847690df70e65c6b46f4d4 and published RC1 repository
here:
>>>>> http://cloudstack.apt-get.eu/testing/4.11-rc1
>>>>>
>>>>> The release notes are still work-in-progress, but the systemvmtemplate
>>>>> upgrade section has been updated. You may refer the following for
>>>>> systemvmtemplate upgrade testing:
>>>>> http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-release-notes/en/latest/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> 4.11 systemvmtemplates are available from here:
>>>>> https://download.cloudstack.org/systemvm/4.11/
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
> > >>> Rohit Yadav

Mime
View raw message