incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chiradeep Vittal <Chiradeep.Vit...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Date Thu, 28 Feb 2013 05:52:18 GMT


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'.

>
>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.

>
>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