incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Date Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:13:08 GMT
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:47:25AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> <Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sheng@yasker.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted alone,
> >>I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole 4.1
> >>release, to avoid confusion.
> >
> > As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion. People
> > are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since it is
> > considered experimental.
> > I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this stage
> > of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go with the
> > 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks ago, I'd say,
> > 'yeah, probably OK'.
> 
> I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would
> need a template. I stated so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I
> opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1. Thanks to Rohit, we
> started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine.
> 
> But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the
> issue raised by QA at last minute.
> 
> I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in
> 4.1. Seems nobody cares.
> >
> >>
> >>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm template
> >>for one release would be tricky I think.
> >
> > Yes, but it is experimental.
> >
> >>
> >>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained
> >>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside
> >>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, tested
> >>enough for default template.
> >
> > These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we could
> > use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the apt-get unless
> > some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For example:
> >  - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or
> >  - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created.
> 
> I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or confident.
> 
> I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things.
> 
> According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's
> right that people not quite interested in ipv6.

To be clear, I personally am *very* interested in getting IPv6 support.
I think what we are talking about is the fact that this is experimental
for 4.1 (as previously agreed).

> 
> Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable
> with updated template.

+1 to that approach.

And another +1 to the implied implementation of IPv6, plus a new
template, plus a new template build process, plus the UI, plus lots of
testing...  to make IPv6 support a full feature for 4.2.

> 
> --Sheng
> 
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785
> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387
> [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus=15159
> >
> >>
> >>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade
> >>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't
> >>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it again,
> >>Kelven should able to help with it.
> >>
> >>--Sheng
> >>
> >>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
> >><chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> >>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6
> >>>> feature is required in which case:
> >>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing
> >>>> with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
> >>>> B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is
> >>>>created) to
> >>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
> >>>
> >>> I like option A.  We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be
> >>> considered "experimental" in this release anyway.  So if someone wants
> >>> to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little more work
> >>> to get the correct system VM.
> >>>
> >>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
> >>>
> >>> Other thoughts?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bhaisaab@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sheng@yasker.org>
wrote:
> >>>> >> When I first report the bug
> >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't
aware of
> >>>> >>that.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
> >>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since
I
> >>>> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version
to
> >>>> >4.2
> >>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make
it in
> >>>> >4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an
> >>>> >automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
> >>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
> >>>> >appliance/template really works [2]
> >>>> >
> >>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I
would
> >>>> >try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2,
I
> >>>> >really want to see your feature go in 4.1
> >>>> >Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception
to at
> >>>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be
used
> >>>> >in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we
could
> >>>> >still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before
the
> >>>> >release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Regards.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
> >>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
> >>>> >
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> --Sheng
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
> >>>> >> <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
> >>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
> >>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340.
 The system
> >>>>VM
> >>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/
> >>>>>>>>las
> >>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I
am referring to
> >>>> >>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to
use now
> >>>>are the
> >>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix
> >>>>pre-ASF).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> 

Mime
View raw message