You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> on 2014/08/01 10:56:38 UTC
[ACS44]{DISCUSS] remove from the site
H,
In the last couple of days a lot of problems with 4.4.0 have been
reported. Workarounds, if at all available, are hard and require
intimate sysadmin experience. It seems to me we didn't deliver the
quality we want to.
One of the problems is that the systemvms need an upgrade because of
our java 1.7 usage which poses a potential bootstrap problem in case
the secondary storage vm is rebooted/restarted. A possible solution
would be to have the svm do an update on the java packages with ssh
during the upgrade of the management server.
Concequential problem is that the upgrade of the systemvms at this
moment requires manual intervention of the operator, as the upgrade
code as used in the case of 4.3 has not been created for this version.
A workaround is here:
https://gist.github.com/terbolous/102ae8edd1cda192561c/
SO I wonder if we should still expose the world to version 4.4.0
thoughts?
--
Daan
Re: [ACS44]{DISCUSS] remove from the site
Posted by Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com>.
If you get hit by https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6893
there is no workaround in 4.4.0 as far as I know.
you can download the patch and apply it to 4.4.0 and rebuild, but then it
isn't 4.4.0 any more is it?
I've been hit by it in lab once, I don't know if it only happens in some
scenarios, and I don't know why it doesn't affect fresh installs.
But being hit by it in production basically makes EVERYTHING unable to
start which can be a major problem.
--
Erik
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Ian Duffy <ia...@ianduffy.ie> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since a workaround available I don't think removing it is necessary.
> However, I think users should be made aware via the site and 4.4
> documentation that there is known issues and that upgrading is possibly
> dangerous.
>
Re: [ACS44]{DISCUSS] remove from the site
Posted by Ian Duffy <ia...@ianduffy.ie>.
Hi,
Since a workaround available I don't think removing it is necessary.
However, I think users should be made aware via the site and 4.4
documentation that there is known issues and that upgrading is possibly
dangerous.
Re: [ACS44]{DISCUSS] remove from the site
Posted by benoit lair <ku...@gmail.com>.
Hello
Haven't we got a very similar problem when upgrading from acs 4.2 to acs
4.3 ? From my memories, we had to apply a trick in order to get working the
system vm template after upgrading the acs version.
I do not see this as a blocking step for a production environment. If there
is in the installation upgrade process the notice with a tutorial
explaining why and how to do it securely, so we can prepare smoothly our
upgrade, isn't it ?
2014-08-01 16:55 GMT+02:00 David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 1, 2014, at 4:56 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> H,
> >>
> >> In the last couple of days a lot of problems with 4.4.0 have been
> >> reported. Workarounds, if at all available, are hard and require
> >> intimate sysadmin experience. It seems to me we didn't deliver the
> >> quality we want to.
> >>
> >> One of the problems is that the systemvms need an upgrade because of
> >> our java 1.7 usage which poses a potential bootstrap problem in case
> >> the secondary storage vm is rebooted/restarted. A possible solution
> >> would be to have the svm do an update on the java packages with ssh
> >> during the upgrade of the management server.
> >> Concequential problem is that the upgrade of the systemvms at this
> >> moment requires manual intervention of the operator, as the upgrade
> >> code as used in the case of 4.3 has not been created for this version.
> >> A workaround is here:
> >> https://gist.github.com/terbolous/102ae8edd1cda192561c/
> >>
> >> SO I wonder if we should still expose the world to version 4.4.0
> >>
> >> thoughts?
> >
> > Haven't tried upgrade, but if there is an issue (and it seems like there
> is), then we should release 4.4.1 asap.
> > And inform users@ of the problem...
> >
>
> Agreed.
> We can't undo 4.4.0 - we can delay promoting the 4.4 release until
> 4.4.1 is available.
>
> --David
>
Re: [ACS44]{DISCUSS] remove from the site
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 4:56 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> H,
>>
>> In the last couple of days a lot of problems with 4.4.0 have been
>> reported. Workarounds, if at all available, are hard and require
>> intimate sysadmin experience. It seems to me we didn't deliver the
>> quality we want to.
>>
>> One of the problems is that the systemvms need an upgrade because of
>> our java 1.7 usage which poses a potential bootstrap problem in case
>> the secondary storage vm is rebooted/restarted. A possible solution
>> would be to have the svm do an update on the java packages with ssh
>> during the upgrade of the management server.
>> Concequential problem is that the upgrade of the systemvms at this
>> moment requires manual intervention of the operator, as the upgrade
>> code as used in the case of 4.3 has not been created for this version.
>> A workaround is here:
>> https://gist.github.com/terbolous/102ae8edd1cda192561c/
>>
>> SO I wonder if we should still expose the world to version 4.4.0
>>
>> thoughts?
>
> Haven't tried upgrade, but if there is an issue (and it seems like there is), then we should release 4.4.1 asap.
> And inform users@ of the problem...
>
Agreed.
We can't undo 4.4.0 - we can delay promoting the 4.4 release until
4.4.1 is available.
--David
Re: [ACS44]{DISCUSS] remove from the site
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Aug 1, 2014, at 4:56 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> H,
>
> In the last couple of days a lot of problems with 4.4.0 have been
> reported. Workarounds, if at all available, are hard and require
> intimate sysadmin experience. It seems to me we didn't deliver the
> quality we want to.
>
> One of the problems is that the systemvms need an upgrade because of
> our java 1.7 usage which poses a potential bootstrap problem in case
> the secondary storage vm is rebooted/restarted. A possible solution
> would be to have the svm do an update on the java packages with ssh
> during the upgrade of the management server.
> Concequential problem is that the upgrade of the systemvms at this
> moment requires manual intervention of the operator, as the upgrade
> code as used in the case of 4.3 has not been created for this version.
> A workaround is here:
> https://gist.github.com/terbolous/102ae8edd1cda192561c/
>
> SO I wonder if we should still expose the world to version 4.4.0
>
> thoughts?
Haven't tried upgrade, but if there is an issue (and it seems like there is), then we should release 4.4.1 asap.
And inform users@ of the problem...
> --
> Daan
Re: [ACS44]{DISCUSS] remove from the site
Posted by Go Chiba <go...@gmail.com>.
Daan,
In Japan, already some of press has announced 4.4 release and already some of users tried this version so I think we should be keep expose 4.4 on site.
And if issues only depend on systemvm, It should be add note about links for fixed systemvm template and explain workaround to avoid this specific issue.
Go Chiba
E-mail:go.chiba@gmail.com
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> H,
>
> In the last couple of days a lot of problems with 4.4.0 have been
> reported. Workarounds, if at all available, are hard and require
> intimate sysadmin experience. It seems to me we didn't deliver the
> quality we want to.
>
> One of the problems is that the systemvms need an upgrade because of
> our java 1.7 usage which poses a potential bootstrap problem in case
> the secondary storage vm is rebooted/restarted. A possible solution
> would be to have the svm do an update on the java packages with ssh
> during the upgrade of the management server.
> Concequential problem is that the upgrade of the systemvms at this
> moment requires manual intervention of the operator, as the upgrade
> code as used in the case of 4.3 has not been created for this version.
> A workaround is here:
> https://gist.github.com/terbolous/102ae8edd1cda192561c/
>
> SO I wonder if we should still expose the world to version 4.4.0
>
> thoughts?
> --
> Daan