You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> on 2013/05/15 16:14:07 UTC
[ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Sebastian re-opened CLOUDSTACK-2463 due to users wanting to upgrade from
2.x to 4.1. This relates to the security groups feature being available
when using VLANs in an advanced networking zone. This feature was
apparently broken in the 3.x series, and is not slated to be
reintroduced until 4.2.
This is a horrible situation, and one that we've now encountered for a
third time.
IMO, we have 2 very specific options:
1) We pull that new feature into 4.1, and do the relevant testing.
2) We do not pull that feature into 4.1, and release as is with a strong
message in the release notes highlighting that we know that 2.x to 4.1
will not support it (and state that those users requiring the feature
should wait for 4.2).
At this point, I don't have a preference. We probably need to
understand the effort for (1), as well as understand who would do that
work (dev AND testing).
Thoughts?
-chip
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:10:44PM +0000, Geoff Higginbottom wrote:
> Hi Chip,
>
> If I could add my 10 cents worth.
>
> I know of a number of potential CloudStack users who want to deploy CloudStack, but ONLY when this feature is available as it is critical to their deployment plans. One of them is actually looking at OpenStack as an alternative!
>
> What I am also confused about is that it has been in Citrix CloudPlatform since 3.0.6 release, and has been improved in subsequent updates (2x patch releases)
>
> If it is working in CloudPlatform, we should be able to get it into the CloudStack 4.1 release
>
> Therefore I vote for option 1: Pull the feature into 4.1 and do the relevant testing
>
> I am sure I can get some volunteers to help with testing, myself included.
>
> Regards
>
> Geoff Higginbottom
Geoff,
Thanks for the thoughts... and yes, if we pull that feature in (and
your vote is noted) I'll absolutely look forward to you helping to test
once the code is in place!
-chip
RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Geoff Higginbottom <ge...@shapeblue.com>.
Hi Chip,
If I could add my 10 cents worth.
I know of a number of potential CloudStack users who want to deploy CloudStack, but ONLY when this feature is available as it is critical to their deployment plans. One of them is actually looking at OpenStack as an alternative!
What I am also confused about is that it has been in Citrix CloudPlatform since 3.0.6 release, and has been improved in subsequent updates (2x patch releases)
If it is working in CloudPlatform, we should be able to get it into the CloudStack 4.1 release
Therefore I vote for option 1: Pull the feature into 4.1 and do the relevant testing
I am sure I can get some volunteers to help with testing, myself included.
Regards
Geoff Higginbottom
D: +44 20 3603 0542 | S: +44 20 3603 0540 | M: +447968161581
geoff.higginbottom@shapeblue.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: 15 May 2013 15:14
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Sebastian re-opened CLOUDSTACK-2463 due to users wanting to upgrade from 2.x to 4.1. This relates to the security groups feature being available when using VLANs in an advanced networking zone. This feature was apparently broken in the 3.x series, and is not slated to be reintroduced until 4.2.
This is a horrible situation, and one that we've now encountered for a third time.
IMO, we have 2 very specific options:
1) We pull that new feature into 4.1, and do the relevant testing.
2) We do not pull that feature into 4.1, and release as is with a strong message in the release notes highlighting that we know that 2.x to 4.1 will not support it (and state that those users requiring the feature should wait for 4.2).
At this point, I don't have a preference. We probably need to understand the effort for (1), as well as understand who would do that work (dev AND testing).
Thoughts?
-chip
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by ni...@orange.com.
Hi,
We will be connected on IRC, (#cloudstack-dev channel) on 6pm CET
(GMT+1, France Time). Notify us when you are available.
Nick:
- gfraysse
- l_a_m
- mmauget
Regards.
Le 22/05/2013 16:02, Sebastien Goasguen a écrit :
>
> On May 22, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
>> CC'ing Animesh and Alena (since they are the ones offering to be in
>> contact).
>>
>> Nicolas - keep in mind that they are US West Coast time. And when you
>> say 6PM, which timezone are you in specifically?
>
> Paris time, currently PST +9, 9am for Animesh
>
>
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:46:27PM +0200, nicolas.lamirault@orange.com wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> is it possible to have a meeting today, May 22 6pm for Europe ?
>>> Guillaume is the privileged interlocutor.
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>> e 21/05/2013 22:20, Chip Childers a écrit :
>>>> Adding Nicolas to the CC line to be sure that he sees Animesh's offer.
>>>>
>>>> Animesh - Nicolas is in the EU, so I'd expect a reply tomorrow?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 01:01:59PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: nicolas.lamirault@orange.com [mailto:nicolas.lamirault@orange.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM
>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>> We didn't so much choose the Security Groups feature as we found that the
>>>>>> VLAN option, which is the only other option available in 2.2.13, wouldn't let
>>>>>> us achieve what we had in mind in terms of Network Architecture.
>>>>>> This was more of a default choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our need was/is to :
>>>>>> - use external gateways (don't use Virtual Routers as gateways)
>>>>>> - use external firewalls
>>>>>> - have 2 or 3 VLANs, depending on customers' needs, for each "customer
>>>>>> platform". A "customer platform" in our own terminology is mapped to a
>>>>>> Domain and an Account in the CS terminology. Those VLAN are affected
>>>>>> externally by our own tool which call CloudStack and set the appropriate
>>>>>> VLANs in the Networks attached to a domain.
>>>>>> - not have overlapping subnets between customers. We split our subnet
>>>>>> between customers, each has a different one
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we couldn't have that if we had chosen in our Zone configuration an
>>>>>> Advanced Network with VLAN instead of Security Groups. But we don't use
>>>>>> the Security Groups feature itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding these needs what do you think is the best way for us to upgrade
>>>>>> from 2.2.13 to 4.1 and not break existing customers ?
>>>>> [Animesh>] I am still not following the use-case completely, should we do a go to meeting ? Alena and I can join. Let me know what time works best for you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Nicolas Lamirault
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>> France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>
>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>>> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
--
Nicolas Lamirault
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
On May 22, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> CC'ing Animesh and Alena (since they are the ones offering to be in
> contact).
>
> Nicolas - keep in mind that they are US West Coast time. And when you
> say 6PM, which timezone are you in specifically?
Paris time, currently PST +9, 9am for Animesh
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:46:27PM +0200, nicolas.lamirault@orange.com wrote:
>> Hi,
>> is it possible to have a meeting today, May 22 6pm for Europe ?
>> Guillaume is the privileged interlocutor.
>> Regards.
>>
>> e 21/05/2013 22:20, Chip Childers a écrit :
>>> Adding Nicolas to the CC line to be sure that he sees Animesh's offer.
>>>
>>> Animesh - Nicolas is in the EU, so I'd expect a reply tomorrow?
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 01:01:59PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: nicolas.lamirault@orange.com [mailto:nicolas.lamirault@orange.com]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM
>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>> We didn't so much choose the Security Groups feature as we found that the
>>>>> VLAN option, which is the only other option available in 2.2.13, wouldn't let
>>>>> us achieve what we had in mind in terms of Network Architecture.
>>>>> This was more of a default choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our need was/is to :
>>>>> - use external gateways (don't use Virtual Routers as gateways)
>>>>> - use external firewalls
>>>>> - have 2 or 3 VLANs, depending on customers' needs, for each "customer
>>>>> platform". A "customer platform" in our own terminology is mapped to a
>>>>> Domain and an Account in the CS terminology. Those VLAN are affected
>>>>> externally by our own tool which call CloudStack and set the appropriate
>>>>> VLANs in the Networks attached to a domain.
>>>>> - not have overlapping subnets between customers. We split our subnet
>>>>> between customers, each has a different one
>>>>>
>>>>> And we couldn't have that if we had chosen in our Zone configuration an
>>>>> Advanced Network with VLAN instead of Security Groups. But we don't use
>>>>> the Security Groups feature itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding these needs what do you think is the best way for us to upgrade
>>>>> from 2.2.13 to 4.1 and not break existing customers ?
>>>> [Animesh>] I am still not following the use-case completely, should we do a go to meeting ? Alena and I can join. Let me know what time works best for you.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nicolas Lamirault
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>> France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by gu...@orange.com.
We mean 6pm CET (GMT+1, France Time), which should mean 9am PST in the
West Coast.
On 05/22/2013 03:55 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> CC'ing Animesh and Alena (since they are the ones offering to be in
> contact).
>
> Nicolas - keep in mind that they are US West Coast time. And when you
> say 6PM, which timezone are you in specifically?
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:46:27PM +0200, nicolas.lamirault@orange.com wrote:
>> Hi,
>> is it possible to have a meeting today, May 22 6pm for Europe ?
>> Guillaume is the privileged interlocutor.
>> Regards.
>>
>> e 21/05/2013 22:20, Chip Childers a écrit :
>>> Adding Nicolas to the CC line to be sure that he sees Animesh's offer.
>>>
>>> Animesh - Nicolas is in the EU, so I'd expect a reply tomorrow?
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 01:01:59PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: nicolas.lamirault@orange.com [mailto:nicolas.lamirault@orange.com]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM
>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>> We didn't so much choose the Security Groups feature as we found that the
>>>>> VLAN option, which is the only other option available in 2.2.13, wouldn't let
>>>>> us achieve what we had in mind in terms of Network Architecture.
>>>>> This was more of a default choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our need was/is to :
>>>>> - use external gateways (don't use Virtual Routers as gateways)
>>>>> - use external firewalls
>>>>> - have 2 or 3 VLANs, depending on customers' needs, for each "customer
>>>>> platform". A "customer platform" in our own terminology is mapped to a
>>>>> Domain and an Account in the CS terminology. Those VLAN are affected
>>>>> externally by our own tool which call CloudStack and set the appropriate
>>>>> VLANs in the Networks attached to a domain.
>>>>> - not have overlapping subnets between customers. We split our subnet
>>>>> between customers, each has a different one
>>>>>
>>>>> And we couldn't have that if we had chosen in our Zone configuration an
>>>>> Advanced Network with VLAN instead of Security Groups. But we don't use
>>>>> the Security Groups feature itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding these needs what do you think is the best way for us to upgrade
>>>> >from 2.2.13 to 4.1 and not break existing customers ?
>>>> [Animesh>] I am still not following the use-case completely, should we do a go to meeting ? Alena and I can join. Let me know what time works best for you.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Nicolas Lamirault
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>> France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
--
*Guillaume FRAYSSE*
Responsable de Programme Cloud Computing
Customer Contact Solutions
guillaume.fraysse@orange.com <ma...@orange.com>
bureau : 0153908547
mobile : 0675384735
Multimedia Business Services
106, rue du Temple
75003 PARIS
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
CC'ing Animesh and Alena (since they are the ones offering to be in
contact).
Nicolas - keep in mind that they are US West Coast time. And when you
say 6PM, which timezone are you in specifically?
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:46:27PM +0200, nicolas.lamirault@orange.com wrote:
> Hi,
> is it possible to have a meeting today, May 22 6pm for Europe ?
> Guillaume is the privileged interlocutor.
> Regards.
>
> e 21/05/2013 22:20, Chip Childers a écrit :
> >Adding Nicolas to the CC line to be sure that he sees Animesh's offer.
> >
> >Animesh - Nicolas is in the EU, so I'd expect a reply tomorrow?
> >
> >On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 01:01:59PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: nicolas.lamirault@orange.com [mailto:nicolas.lamirault@orange.com]
> >>>Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM
> >>>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >>>Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
> >>>
> >>>Hi
> >>>We didn't so much choose the Security Groups feature as we found that the
> >>>VLAN option, which is the only other option available in 2.2.13, wouldn't let
> >>>us achieve what we had in mind in terms of Network Architecture.
> >>>This was more of a default choice.
> >>>
> >>>Our need was/is to :
> >>>- use external gateways (don't use Virtual Routers as gateways)
> >>>- use external firewalls
> >>>- have 2 or 3 VLANs, depending on customers' needs, for each "customer
> >>>platform". A "customer platform" in our own terminology is mapped to a
> >>>Domain and an Account in the CS terminology. Those VLAN are affected
> >>>externally by our own tool which call CloudStack and set the appropriate
> >>>VLANs in the Networks attached to a domain.
> >>>- not have overlapping subnets between customers. We split our subnet
> >>>between customers, each has a different one
> >>>
> >>>And we couldn't have that if we had chosen in our Zone configuration an
> >>>Advanced Network with VLAN instead of Security Groups. But we don't use
> >>>the Security Groups feature itself.
> >>>
> >>>Regarding these needs what do you think is the best way for us to upgrade
> >>>from 2.2.13 to 4.1 and not break existing customers ?
> >>[Animesh>] I am still not following the use-case completely, should we do a go to meeting ? Alena and I can join. Let me know what time works best for you.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Nicolas Lamirault
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by ni...@orange.com.
Hi,
is it possible to have a meeting today, May 22 6pm for Europe ?
Guillaume is the privileged interlocutor.
Regards.
e 21/05/2013 22:20, Chip Childers a écrit :
> Adding Nicolas to the CC line to be sure that he sees Animesh's offer.
>
> Animesh - Nicolas is in the EU, so I'd expect a reply tomorrow?
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 01:01:59PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nicolas.lamirault@orange.com [mailto:nicolas.lamirault@orange.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>>>
>>> Hi
>>> We didn't so much choose the Security Groups feature as we found that the
>>> VLAN option, which is the only other option available in 2.2.13, wouldn't let
>>> us achieve what we had in mind in terms of Network Architecture.
>>> This was more of a default choice.
>>>
>>> Our need was/is to :
>>> - use external gateways (don't use Virtual Routers as gateways)
>>> - use external firewalls
>>> - have 2 or 3 VLANs, depending on customers' needs, for each "customer
>>> platform". A "customer platform" in our own terminology is mapped to a
>>> Domain and an Account in the CS terminology. Those VLAN are affected
>>> externally by our own tool which call CloudStack and set the appropriate
>>> VLANs in the Networks attached to a domain.
>>> - not have overlapping subnets between customers. We split our subnet
>>> between customers, each has a different one
>>>
>>> And we couldn't have that if we had chosen in our Zone configuration an
>>> Advanced Network with VLAN instead of Security Groups. But we don't use
>>> the Security Groups feature itself.
>>>
>>> Regarding these needs what do you think is the best way for us to upgrade
>>> from 2.2.13 to 4.1 and not break existing customers ?
>> [Animesh>] I am still not following the use-case completely, should we do a go to meeting ? Alena and I can join. Let me know what time works best for you.
>
>
--
Nicolas Lamirault
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
Adding Nicolas to the CC line to be sure that he sees Animesh's offer.
Animesh - Nicolas is in the EU, so I'd expect a reply tomorrow?
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 01:01:59PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nicolas.lamirault@orange.com [mailto:nicolas.lamirault@orange.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
> >
> > Hi
> > We didn't so much choose the Security Groups feature as we found that the
> > VLAN option, which is the only other option available in 2.2.13, wouldn't let
> > us achieve what we had in mind in terms of Network Architecture.
> > This was more of a default choice.
> >
> > Our need was/is to :
> > - use external gateways (don't use Virtual Routers as gateways)
> > - use external firewalls
> > - have 2 or 3 VLANs, depending on customers' needs, for each "customer
> > platform". A "customer platform" in our own terminology is mapped to a
> > Domain and an Account in the CS terminology. Those VLAN are affected
> > externally by our own tool which call CloudStack and set the appropriate
> > VLANs in the Networks attached to a domain.
> > - not have overlapping subnets between customers. We split our subnet
> > between customers, each has a different one
> >
> > And we couldn't have that if we had chosen in our Zone configuration an
> > Advanced Network with VLAN instead of Security Groups. But we don't use
> > the Security Groups feature itself.
> >
> > Regarding these needs what do you think is the best way for us to upgrade
> > from 2.2.13 to 4.1 and not break existing customers ?
> [Animesh>] I am still not following the use-case completely, should we do a go to meeting ? Alena and I can join. Let me know what time works best for you.
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Alena Prokharchyk <Al...@citrix.com>.
On 5/22/13 12:30 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:26:06PM +0000, Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
>> On 5/22/13 11:11 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 06:08:52PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>> >> Alena and I discussed with folks at Orange, their use-case can be
>> >>supported in AdvancedZone without SecurityGroup by creating account
>> >>specific guest network. Alena will look at their database to help them
>> >>migrate the db
>> >
>> >Well done, and thank you for doing a real-time support session!
>> >
>> >Alena, do you expect that we will have an "official" database migration
>> >script that needs to be in the release? Or is this just something that
>> >you believe to be very unique to that user?
>> >
>>
>>
>> Chip,
>>
>> The purpose of this migration script is to transform Advance SG enabled
>> zone to Advance SG disabled zone while being on 2.2.x. It should be used
>> only by the customers who created this kind of zone and added VmWare
>> hypervisor to it - something that CS didn't support even back in 2.2.x
>>(no
>> support for SG groups on vmWare, in both Basic and Advance zone).
>>
>> I don't think the script should become a part of the release as
>>officially
>> we don't support SG enabled to SG disabled zone conversion.
>
>Understood. However, can we post it somewhere so that it can be
>referenced if someone has this issue in the future?
Sure, but only if the script will can be generic enough. For that I'll
have to analyze the DB first as we've never done this kind of conversion
before. I will send an update once I'm done.
>
>>
>>
>> Customers who configured Advance SG enabled zone with Xen/KVM
>>hypervisors,
>> will expect their configuration to work as it used to, after upgrading
>>to
>> 4.1. Nothing should be changed in their DB, SG functionality should be
>> preserved as well. For that, Anthony's code merge for Advance SG enabled
>> zone should become a part of 4.1. Otherwise we should announce that this
>> functionality is not supported in 4.1, and 2.2.x customers having this
>> type of zone, shouldn't upgrade to 4.1 CS.
>>
>
>I'm not advocating pulling in the SG for Advanced Zones feature anymore.
>I *do* realize that we will still have some stranded users sitting on
>2.x versions (which stinks), but the decision to drop support was
>pre-ASF and the re-inclusion of the feature should follow the normal
>process (bring it in via a standard new feature merge window).
>
>Based on the notes above - I'm going to *not* block on CLOUDSTACK-2463
>anymore.
>
>-chip
>
>>
>> -Alena.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:26:06PM +0000, Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> On 5/22/13 11:11 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 06:08:52PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> >> Alena and I discussed with folks at Orange, their use-case can be
> >>supported in AdvancedZone without SecurityGroup by creating account
> >>specific guest network. Alena will look at their database to help them
> >>migrate the db
> >
> >Well done, and thank you for doing a real-time support session!
> >
> >Alena, do you expect that we will have an "official" database migration
> >script that needs to be in the release? Or is this just something that
> >you believe to be very unique to that user?
> >
>
>
> Chip,
>
> The purpose of this migration script is to transform Advance SG enabled
> zone to Advance SG disabled zone while being on 2.2.x. It should be used
> only by the customers who created this kind of zone and added VmWare
> hypervisor to it - something that CS didn't support even back in 2.2.x (no
> support for SG groups on vmWare, in both Basic and Advance zone).
>
> I don't think the script should become a part of the release as officially
> we don't support SG enabled to SG disabled zone conversion.
Understood. However, can we post it somewhere so that it can be
referenced if someone has this issue in the future?
>
>
> Customers who configured Advance SG enabled zone with Xen/KVM hypervisors,
> will expect their configuration to work as it used to, after upgrading to
> 4.1. Nothing should be changed in their DB, SG functionality should be
> preserved as well. For that, Anthony's code merge for Advance SG enabled
> zone should become a part of 4.1. Otherwise we should announce that this
> functionality is not supported in 4.1, and 2.2.x customers having this
> type of zone, shouldn't upgrade to 4.1 CS.
>
I'm not advocating pulling in the SG for Advanced Zones feature anymore.
I *do* realize that we will still have some stranded users sitting on
2.x versions (which stinks), but the decision to drop support was
pre-ASF and the re-inclusion of the feature should follow the normal
process (bring it in via a standard new feature merge window).
Based on the notes above - I'm going to *not* block on CLOUDSTACK-2463
anymore.
-chip
>
> -Alena.
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
On May 22, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 06:08:52PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>> Alena and I discussed with folks at Orange, their use-case can be supported in AdvancedZone without SecurityGroup by creating account specific guest network. Alena will look at their database to help them migrate the db
>
> Well done, and thank you for doing a real-time support session!
>
> Alena, do you expect that we will have an "official" database migration
> script that needs to be in the release? Or is this just something that
> you believe to be very unique to that user?
Thanks a lot Animesh.
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Alena Prokharchyk <Al...@citrix.com>.
On 5/22/13 11:11 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 06:08:52PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>> Alena and I discussed with folks at Orange, their use-case can be
>>supported in AdvancedZone without SecurityGroup by creating account
>>specific guest network. Alena will look at their database to help them
>>migrate the db
>
>Well done, and thank you for doing a real-time support session!
>
>Alena, do you expect that we will have an "official" database migration
>script that needs to be in the release? Or is this just something that
>you believe to be very unique to that user?
>
Chip,
The purpose of this migration script is to transform Advance SG enabled
zone to Advance SG disabled zone while being on 2.2.x. It should be used
only by the customers who created this kind of zone and added VmWare
hypervisor to it - something that CS didn't support even back in 2.2.x (no
support for SG groups on vmWare, in both Basic and Advance zone).
I don't think the script should become a part of the release as officially
we don't support SG enabled to SG disabled zone conversion.
Customers who configured Advance SG enabled zone with Xen/KVM hypervisors,
will expect their configuration to work as it used to, after upgrading to
4.1. Nothing should be changed in their DB, SG functionality should be
preserved as well. For that, Anthony's code merge for Advance SG enabled
zone should become a part of 4.1. Otherwise we should announce that this
functionality is not supported in 4.1, and 2.2.x customers having this
type of zone, shouldn't upgrade to 4.1 CS.
-Alena.
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 06:08:52PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> Alena and I discussed with folks at Orange, their use-case can be supported in AdvancedZone without SecurityGroup by creating account specific guest network. Alena will look at their database to help them migrate the db
Well done, and thank you for doing a real-time support session!
Alena, do you expect that we will have an "official" database migration
script that needs to be in the release? Or is this just something that
you believe to be very unique to that user?
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com>.
in light of this and not understanding the benefit of having sec groups +
advanced zone features.. are the security group ACL's even honored in this
setup? I'm more inclined to see Decision 3 implemented. Is there a VOTE for
this coming up?
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <
Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
> May I humbly suggest that the configuration (SG + Advanced + VMWare) was
> never supported and the end user got themselves into an unfortunate
> situation by using an unsupported configuration (even if the software let
> them do it).
> I have perused both 2.2.13 and 2.2.14 install guides and it is quite clear
> that security groups are only supported with Xen and KVM, for basic zone.
>
>
> On 5/20/13 12:36 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:50PM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> >>
> >> On May 17, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> >><an...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
> >> >> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
> >> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> >> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.zhou@leaseweb.com)
> >> >> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1
> >>vs 4.2
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On May 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> >> >> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> So I am confused looks like Nicolas was not using this feature as
> >>it was not
> >> >> supported for Vmware any way so how is upgrade blocked?
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Animesh, I talked with nicolas and the way I understand it is that
> >>they had to
> >> >> enable SG to set their VLANs in advanced zone the way they needed to.
> >> >> They actually did not use the SG functionality. Beats me but I don't
> >>know
> >> >> 2.2.14(13)
> >> > [Animesh>] I am not sure why would SG be needed to set their VLANs in
> >>advanced zone?
> >>
> >> I think only someone with knowledge of 2.2.14 would understand that.
> >>
> >> > If Anthony's patch is available in 4.1 wouldn't it fix the issue or
> >>is it that upgrade gets stuck in intermediate step during upgrade to 4.0?
> >>
> >> I don't know. My understanding is that Anthony's patch won't be usable
> >>for vmware hypervisor.
> >
> >So we are at a bit of an impasse here, and I'm not sure that we have
> >figured out what our options might even be.
> >
> >Here's the situation:
> >
> >We have people stuck on 2.x right now that were using SG's within
> >Advanced Zones. That feature seems to have been dropped from the code
> >from before CloudStack was in the ASF. We have work in-progress for
> >4.2 to make that feature a feature again. The 4.2 work does *not*
> >include VMware environments.
> >
> >We have some decisions to make:
> >
> >Decision 1: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until the work in
> >progress is complete for Xen and KVM (and tested)?
> >
> >Decision 2: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until *both* the
> >Xen/KVM implementation and a VMware implementation exist?
> >
> >Decision 3: Do we solve the VMware upgrade path by ensuring that the
> >right DB bits exist to transition an installation from 2.x to 4.1 in a
> >way that drops SG support in advanced zones using Vmware HVs?
> >
> >Decision 4: Do we keep people in this situation stranded on 2.x?
> >
> >I'm personally frustrated that we have users stuck on 2.x right now.
> >This is happened to us a couple of times since the project came to
> >Apache, where the community has found out that something was dropped or
> >effectively eaten away by "bit rot". I am, however, thankful that we are
> >able to make decisions about features health as a community going forward.
> >
> >I'd appreciate if others can bring their ideas / thoughts to this thread
> >so that we can move forward. I'm asking for tactical ideas here... If
> >I'm not clear on the issues as stated so far, correct me please.
> >
> >If I don't hear anything over the next day or so, I'm going to
> >start a VOTE thread to accept the current state of things as is for 4.1
> >and move forward with a 4.1 release. This is not my preference, but
> >without specific suggestions to resolve the problem, there isn't much
> >else
> >I can see doing get past our current impasse.
> >
> >-chip
>
>
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com>.
My preference leans towards option 2. Dont release until we have a valid
path for the 2.x cast aways to return back to a more modern version. Do we
know the LOE required to bring the advanced security groups back for
KVM/Xen?
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Chip Childers
<ch...@sungard.com>wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:43:01PM -0400, John Burwell wrote:
> > Chip,
> >
> > In addition to this issue, we still do not have a resolution for the
> system VM clock drift on Xen (CLOUDSTACK-2492 [1]).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -John
> >
> > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2492
>
> Yes, but different thread. ;-)
>
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:43:01PM -0400, John Burwell wrote:
> Chip,
>
> In addition to this issue, we still do not have a resolution for the system VM clock drift on Xen (CLOUDSTACK-2492 [1]).
>
> Thanks,
> -John
>
> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2492
Yes, but different thread. ;-)
RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
Alena and I discussed with folks at Orange, their use-case can be supported in AdvancedZone without SecurityGroup by creating account specific guest network. Alena will look at their database to help them migrate the db
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:02 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nicolas.lamirault@orange.com
> > [mailto:nicolas.lamirault@orange.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs
> > 4.2
> >
> > Hi
> > We didn't so much choose the Security Groups feature as we found that
> > the VLAN option, which is the only other option available in 2.2.13,
> > wouldn't let us achieve what we had in mind in terms of Network
> Architecture.
> > This was more of a default choice.
> >
> > Our need was/is to :
> > - use external gateways (don't use Virtual Routers as gateways)
> > - use external firewalls
> > - have 2 or 3 VLANs, depending on customers' needs, for each "customer
> > platform". A "customer platform" in our own terminology is mapped to a
> > Domain and an Account in the CS terminology. Those VLAN are affected
> > externally by our own tool which call CloudStack and set the
> > appropriate VLANs in the Networks attached to a domain.
> > - not have overlapping subnets between customers. We split our subnet
> > between customers, each has a different one
> >
> > And we couldn't have that if we had chosen in our Zone configuration
> > an Advanced Network with VLAN instead of Security Groups. But we don't
> > use the Security Groups feature itself.
> >
> > Regarding these needs what do you think is the best way for us to
> > upgrade from 2.2.13 to 4.1 and not break existing customers ?
> [Animesh>] I am still not following the use-case completely, should we do a
> go to meeting ? Alena and I can join. Let me know what time works best for
> you.
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > Le 21/05/2013 12:58, Sebastien Goasguen a écrit :
> > >
> > > On May 20, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> > <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > >>> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:36 PM
> > >>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > >>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1
> > >>> vs 4.2
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:50PM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On May 17, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> > >>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
> > >>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
> > >>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > >>>>>> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.zhou@leaseweb.com)
> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in
> > >>>>>> 4.1 vs 4.2
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On May 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> > >>>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> So I am confused looks like Nicolas was not using this feature
> > >>>>>>> as it was not
> > >>>>>> supported for Vmware any way so how is upgrade blocked?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Animesh, I talked with nicolas and the way I understand it is
> > >>>>>> that they had to enable SG to set their VLANs in advanced zone
> > >>>>>> the way they
> > >>> needed to.
> > >>>>>> They actually did not use the SG functionality. Beats me but I
> > >>>>>> don't know
> > >>>>>> 2.2.14(13)
> > >>>>> [Animesh>] I am not sure why would SG be needed to set their
> > VLANs
> > >>>>> in
> > >>> advanced zone?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I think only someone with knowledge of 2.2.14 would understand
> that.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> If Anthony's patch is available in 4.1 wouldn't it fix the issue
> > >>>>> or is it that
> > >>> upgrade gets stuck in intermediate step during upgrade to 4.0?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I don't know. My understanding is that Anthony's patch won't be
> > >>>> usable for
> > >>> vmware hypervisor.
> > >>>
> > >>> So we are at a bit of an impasse here, and I'm not sure that we
> > >>> have figured out what our options might even be.
> > >>>
> > >>> Here's the situation:
> > >>>
> > >>> We have people stuck on 2.x right now that were using SG's within
> > >>> Advanced Zones. That feature seems to have been dropped from the
> > >>> code from before CloudStack was in the ASF. We have work
> > >>> in-progress for
> > >>> 4.2 to make that feature a feature again. The 4.2 work does *not*
> > >>> include VMware environments.
> > >>>
> > >>> We have some decisions to make:
> > >>>
> > >>> Decision 1: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until the
> > >>> work in progress is complete for Xen and KVM (and tested)?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>> Decision 2: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until *both*
> > >>> the Xen/KVM implementation and a VMware implementation exist?
> > >>>
> > >> [Animesh>] Do we have a requirement to support this feature for
> > VMWare? It does not look like Nicolas is using this feature and is on
> > VMWare? Wei do you need this feature for VMWare?
> > >>
> > >
> > > I have asked Nicolas to explain his setup on the list.
> > >
> > >
> > >>> Decision 3: Do we solve the VMware upgrade path by ensuring that
> > >>> the right DB bits exist to transition an installation from 2.x to
> > >>> 4.1 in a way that drops SG support in advanced zones using Vmware
> HVs?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>> Decision 4: Do we keep people in this situation stranded on 2.x?
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm personally frustrated that we have users stuck on 2.x right now.
> > >>> This is happened to us a couple of times since the project came to
> > >>> Apache, where the community has found out that something was
> > dropped
> > >>> or effectively eaten away by "bit rot". I am, however, thankful
> > >>> that we are able to make decisions about features health as a
> > community going forward.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd appreciate if others can bring their ideas / thoughts to this
> > >>> thread so that we can move forward. I'm asking for tactical ideas
> > >>> here... If I'm not clear on the issues as stated so far, correct me please.
> > >>>
> > >> [Animesh>] Missed functionality is unfortunate but we have to work
> > >> through them I see Alena is checking on 3.0.x and Apache branches
> > >> to find out if anything else is missing in DB (schema, data)
> > >>
> > >>> If I don't hear anything over the next day or so, I'm going to
> > >>> start a VOTE thread to accept the current state of things as is
> > >>> for 4.1 and move forward with a 4.1 release. This is not my
> > >>> preference, but without specific suggestions to resolve the
> > >>> problem, there isn't much else I can see doing get past our current
> impasse.
> > >>>
> > >>> -chip
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nicolas Lamirault
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > _____
> >
> > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,
> > exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message
> > par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi
> > que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles
> > d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si
> > ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> >
> > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
> > privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not
> > be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> > delete this message and its attachments.
> > As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for
> > messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> > Thank you.
RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nicolas.lamirault@orange.com [mailto:nicolas.lamirault@orange.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>
> Hi
> We didn't so much choose the Security Groups feature as we found that the
> VLAN option, which is the only other option available in 2.2.13, wouldn't let
> us achieve what we had in mind in terms of Network Architecture.
> This was more of a default choice.
>
> Our need was/is to :
> - use external gateways (don't use Virtual Routers as gateways)
> - use external firewalls
> - have 2 or 3 VLANs, depending on customers' needs, for each "customer
> platform". A "customer platform" in our own terminology is mapped to a
> Domain and an Account in the CS terminology. Those VLAN are affected
> externally by our own tool which call CloudStack and set the appropriate
> VLANs in the Networks attached to a domain.
> - not have overlapping subnets between customers. We split our subnet
> between customers, each has a different one
>
> And we couldn't have that if we had chosen in our Zone configuration an
> Advanced Network with VLAN instead of Security Groups. But we don't use
> the Security Groups feature itself.
>
> Regarding these needs what do you think is the best way for us to upgrade
> from 2.2.13 to 4.1 and not break existing customers ?
[Animesh>] I am still not following the use-case completely, should we do a go to meeting ? Alena and I can join. Let me know what time works best for you.
>
> Regards.
>
> Le 21/05/2013 12:58, Sebastien Goasguen a écrit :
> >
> > On May 20, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >>> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:36 PM
> >>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1
> >>> vs 4.2
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:50PM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On May 17, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> >>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
> >>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >>>>>> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.zhou@leaseweb.com)
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in
> >>>>>> 4.1 vs 4.2
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On May 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> >>>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So I am confused looks like Nicolas was not using this feature
> >>>>>>> as it was not
> >>>>>> supported for Vmware any way so how is upgrade blocked?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Animesh, I talked with nicolas and the way I understand it is
> >>>>>> that they had to enable SG to set their VLANs in advanced zone
> >>>>>> the way they
> >>> needed to.
> >>>>>> They actually did not use the SG functionality. Beats me but I
> >>>>>> don't know
> >>>>>> 2.2.14(13)
> >>>>> [Animesh>] I am not sure why would SG be needed to set their
> VLANs
> >>>>> in
> >>> advanced zone?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think only someone with knowledge of 2.2.14 would understand that.
> >>>>
> >>>>> If Anthony's patch is available in 4.1 wouldn't it fix the issue
> >>>>> or is it that
> >>> upgrade gets stuck in intermediate step during upgrade to 4.0?
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't know. My understanding is that Anthony's patch won't be
> >>>> usable for
> >>> vmware hypervisor.
> >>>
> >>> So we are at a bit of an impasse here, and I'm not sure that we have
> >>> figured out what our options might even be.
> >>>
> >>> Here's the situation:
> >>>
> >>> We have people stuck on 2.x right now that were using SG's within
> >>> Advanced Zones. That feature seems to have been dropped from the
> >>> code from before CloudStack was in the ASF. We have work
> >>> in-progress for
> >>> 4.2 to make that feature a feature again. The 4.2 work does *not*
> >>> include VMware environments.
> >>>
> >>> We have some decisions to make:
> >>>
> >>> Decision 1: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until the work
> >>> in progress is complete for Xen and KVM (and tested)?
> >>>
> >>
> >>> Decision 2: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until *both*
> >>> the Xen/KVM implementation and a VMware implementation exist?
> >>>
> >> [Animesh>] Do we have a requirement to support this feature for
> VMWare? It does not look like Nicolas is using this feature and is on
> VMWare? Wei do you need this feature for VMWare?
> >>
> >
> > I have asked Nicolas to explain his setup on the list.
> >
> >
> >>> Decision 3: Do we solve the VMware upgrade path by ensuring that the
> >>> right DB bits exist to transition an installation from 2.x to 4.1 in
> >>> a way that drops SG support in advanced zones using Vmware HVs?
> >>>
> >>
> >>> Decision 4: Do we keep people in this situation stranded on 2.x?
> >>>
> >>> I'm personally frustrated that we have users stuck on 2.x right now.
> >>> This is happened to us a couple of times since the project came to
> >>> Apache, where the community has found out that something was
> dropped
> >>> or effectively eaten away by "bit rot". I am, however, thankful
> >>> that we are able to make decisions about features health as a
> community going forward.
> >>>
> >>> I'd appreciate if others can bring their ideas / thoughts to this
> >>> thread so that we can move forward. I'm asking for tactical ideas
> >>> here... If I'm not clear on the issues as stated so far, correct me please.
> >>>
> >> [Animesh>] Missed functionality is unfortunate but we have to work
> >> through them I see Alena is checking on 3.0.x and Apache branches to
> >> find out if anything else is missing in DB (schema, data)
> >>
> >>> If I don't hear anything over the next day or so, I'm going to start
> >>> a VOTE thread to accept the current state of things as is for 4.1
> >>> and move forward with a 4.1 release. This is not my preference, but
> >>> without specific suggestions to resolve the problem, there isn't
> >>> much else I can see doing get past our current impasse.
> >>>
> >>> -chip
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Nicolas Lamirault
>
> __________________________________________________________
> __________________________________________________________
> _____
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites
> ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez
> le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom -
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed,
> used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
> this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages
> that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by ni...@orange.com.
Hi
We didn't so much choose the Security Groups feature as we found that
the VLAN option, which is the only other option available in 2.2.13,
wouldn't let us achieve what we had in mind in terms of Network
Architecture.
This was more of a default choice.
Our need was/is to :
- use external gateways (don't use Virtual Routers as gateways)
- use external firewalls
- have 2 or 3 VLANs, depending on customers' needs, for each "customer
platform". A "customer platform" in our own terminology is mapped to a
Domain and an Account in the CS terminology. Those VLAN are affected
externally by our own tool which call CloudStack and set the appropriate
VLANs in the Networks attached to a domain.
- not have overlapping subnets between customers. We split our subnet
between customers, each has a different one
And we couldn't have that if we had chosen in our Zone configuration an
Advanced Network with VLAN instead of Security Groups. But we don't use
the Security Groups feature itself.
Regarding these needs what do you think is the best way for us to
upgrade from 2.2.13 to 4.1 and not break existing customers ?
Regards.
Le 21/05/2013 12:58, Sebastien Goasguen a écrit :
>
> On May 20, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:36 PM
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:50PM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On May 17, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>>> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.zhou@leaseweb.com)
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1
>>>>>> vs 4.2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I am confused looks like Nicolas was not using this feature as
>>>>>>> it was not
>>>>>> supported for Vmware any way so how is upgrade blocked?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Animesh, I talked with nicolas and the way I understand it is that
>>>>>> they had to enable SG to set their VLANs in advanced zone the way they
>>> needed to.
>>>>>> They actually did not use the SG functionality. Beats me but I
>>>>>> don't know
>>>>>> 2.2.14(13)
>>>>> [Animesh>] I am not sure why would SG be needed to set their VLANs in
>>> advanced zone?
>>>>
>>>> I think only someone with knowledge of 2.2.14 would understand that.
>>>>
>>>>> If Anthony's patch is available in 4.1 wouldn't it fix the issue or is it that
>>> upgrade gets stuck in intermediate step during upgrade to 4.0?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know. My understanding is that Anthony's patch won't be usable for
>>> vmware hypervisor.
>>>
>>> So we are at a bit of an impasse here, and I'm not sure that we have figured
>>> out what our options might even be.
>>>
>>> Here's the situation:
>>>
>>> We have people stuck on 2.x right now that were using SG's within Advanced
>>> Zones. That feature seems to have been dropped from the code from
>>> before CloudStack was in the ASF. We have work in-progress for
>>> 4.2 to make that feature a feature again. The 4.2 work does *not* include
>>> VMware environments.
>>>
>>> We have some decisions to make:
>>>
>>> Decision 1: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until the work in progress
>>> is complete for Xen and KVM (and tested)?
>>>
>>
>>> Decision 2: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until *both* the Xen/KVM
>>> implementation and a VMware implementation exist?
>>>
>> [Animesh>] Do we have a requirement to support this feature for VMWare? It does not look like Nicolas is using this feature and is on VMWare? Wei do you need this feature for VMWare?
>>
>
> I have asked Nicolas to explain his setup on the list.
>
>
>>> Decision 3: Do we solve the VMware upgrade path by ensuring that the right
>>> DB bits exist to transition an installation from 2.x to 4.1 in a way that drops SG
>>> support in advanced zones using Vmware HVs?
>>>
>>
>>> Decision 4: Do we keep people in this situation stranded on 2.x?
>>>
>>> I'm personally frustrated that we have users stuck on 2.x right now.
>>> This is happened to us a couple of times since the project came to Apache,
>>> where the community has found out that something was dropped or
>>> effectively eaten away by "bit rot". I am, however, thankful that we are able
>>> to make decisions about features health as a community going forward.
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate if others can bring their ideas / thoughts to this thread so that
>>> we can move forward. I'm asking for tactical ideas here... If I'm not clear on
>>> the issues as stated so far, correct me please.
>>>
>> [Animesh>] Missed functionality is unfortunate but we have to work through them I see Alena is checking on 3.0.x and Apache branches to find out if anything else is missing in DB (schema, data)
>>
>>> If I don't hear anything over the next day or so, I'm going to start a VOTE
>>> thread to accept the current state of things as is for 4.1 and move forward
>>> with a 4.1 release. This is not my preference, but without specific
>>> suggestions to resolve the problem, there isn't much else I can see doing get
>>> past our current impasse.
>>>
>>> -chip
>
>
>
--
Nicolas Lamirault
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
On May 20, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:36 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>>
>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:50PM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 17, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.zhou@leaseweb.com)
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1
>>>>> vs 4.2
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So I am confused looks like Nicolas was not using this feature as
>>>>>> it was not
>>>>> supported for Vmware any way so how is upgrade blocked?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Animesh, I talked with nicolas and the way I understand it is that
>>>>> they had to enable SG to set their VLANs in advanced zone the way they
>> needed to.
>>>>> They actually did not use the SG functionality. Beats me but I
>>>>> don't know
>>>>> 2.2.14(13)
>>>> [Animesh>] I am not sure why would SG be needed to set their VLANs in
>> advanced zone?
>>>
>>> I think only someone with knowledge of 2.2.14 would understand that.
>>>
>>>> If Anthony's patch is available in 4.1 wouldn't it fix the issue or is it that
>> upgrade gets stuck in intermediate step during upgrade to 4.0?
>>>
>>> I don't know. My understanding is that Anthony's patch won't be usable for
>> vmware hypervisor.
>>
>> So we are at a bit of an impasse here, and I'm not sure that we have figured
>> out what our options might even be.
>>
>> Here's the situation:
>>
>> We have people stuck on 2.x right now that were using SG's within Advanced
>> Zones. That feature seems to have been dropped from the code from
>> before CloudStack was in the ASF. We have work in-progress for
>> 4.2 to make that feature a feature again. The 4.2 work does *not* include
>> VMware environments.
>>
>> We have some decisions to make:
>>
>> Decision 1: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until the work in progress
>> is complete for Xen and KVM (and tested)?
>>
>
>> Decision 2: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until *both* the Xen/KVM
>> implementation and a VMware implementation exist?
>>
> [Animesh>] Do we have a requirement to support this feature for VMWare? It does not look like Nicolas is using this feature and is on VMWare? Wei do you need this feature for VMWare?
>
I have asked Nicolas to explain his setup on the list.
>> Decision 3: Do we solve the VMware upgrade path by ensuring that the right
>> DB bits exist to transition an installation from 2.x to 4.1 in a way that drops SG
>> support in advanced zones using Vmware HVs?
>>
>
>> Decision 4: Do we keep people in this situation stranded on 2.x?
>>
>> I'm personally frustrated that we have users stuck on 2.x right now.
>> This is happened to us a couple of times since the project came to Apache,
>> where the community has found out that something was dropped or
>> effectively eaten away by "bit rot". I am, however, thankful that we are able
>> to make decisions about features health as a community going forward.
>>
>> I'd appreciate if others can bring their ideas / thoughts to this thread so that
>> we can move forward. I'm asking for tactical ideas here... If I'm not clear on
>> the issues as stated so far, correct me please.
>>
> [Animesh>] Missed functionality is unfortunate but we have to work through them I see Alena is checking on 3.0.x and Apache branches to find out if anything else is missing in DB (schema, data)
>
>> If I don't hear anything over the next day or so, I'm going to start a VOTE
>> thread to accept the current state of things as is for 4.1 and move forward
>> with a 4.1 release. This is not my preference, but without specific
>> suggestions to resolve the problem, there isn't much else I can see doing get
>> past our current impasse.
>>
>> -chip
RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:36 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:50PM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> >
> > On May 17, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
> > >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > >> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.zhou@leaseweb.com)
> > >> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1
> > >> vs 4.2
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On May 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> > >> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> So I am confused looks like Nicolas was not using this feature as
> > >>> it was not
> > >> supported for Vmware any way so how is upgrade blocked?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Animesh, I talked with nicolas and the way I understand it is that
> > >> they had to enable SG to set their VLANs in advanced zone the way they
> needed to.
> > >> They actually did not use the SG functionality. Beats me but I
> > >> don't know
> > >> 2.2.14(13)
> > > [Animesh>] I am not sure why would SG be needed to set their VLANs in
> advanced zone?
> >
> > I think only someone with knowledge of 2.2.14 would understand that.
> >
> > > If Anthony's patch is available in 4.1 wouldn't it fix the issue or is it that
> upgrade gets stuck in intermediate step during upgrade to 4.0?
> >
> > I don't know. My understanding is that Anthony's patch won't be usable for
> vmware hypervisor.
>
> So we are at a bit of an impasse here, and I'm not sure that we have figured
> out what our options might even be.
>
> Here's the situation:
>
> We have people stuck on 2.x right now that were using SG's within Advanced
> Zones. That feature seems to have been dropped from the code from
> before CloudStack was in the ASF. We have work in-progress for
> 4.2 to make that feature a feature again. The 4.2 work does *not* include
> VMware environments.
>
> We have some decisions to make:
>
> Decision 1: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until the work in progress
> is complete for Xen and KVM (and tested)?
>
> Decision 2: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until *both* the Xen/KVM
> implementation and a VMware implementation exist?
>
[Animesh>] Do we have a requirement to support this feature for VMWare? It does not look like Nicolas is using this feature and is on VMWare? Wei do you need this feature for VMWare?
> Decision 3: Do we solve the VMware upgrade path by ensuring that the right
> DB bits exist to transition an installation from 2.x to 4.1 in a way that drops SG
> support in advanced zones using Vmware HVs?
>
> Decision 4: Do we keep people in this situation stranded on 2.x?
>
> I'm personally frustrated that we have users stuck on 2.x right now.
> This is happened to us a couple of times since the project came to Apache,
> where the community has found out that something was dropped or
> effectively eaten away by "bit rot". I am, however, thankful that we are able
> to make decisions about features health as a community going forward.
>
> I'd appreciate if others can bring their ideas / thoughts to this thread so that
> we can move forward. I'm asking for tactical ideas here... If I'm not clear on
> the issues as stated so far, correct me please.
>
[Animesh>] Missed functionality is unfortunate but we have to work through them I see Alena is checking on 3.0.x and Apache branches to find out if anything else is missing in DB (schema, data)
> If I don't hear anything over the next day or so, I'm going to start a VOTE
> thread to accept the current state of things as is for 4.1 and move forward
> with a 4.1 release. This is not my preference, but without specific
> suggestions to resolve the problem, there isn't much else I can see doing get
> past our current impasse.
>
> -chip
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by John Burwell <jb...@basho.com>.
Chip,
In addition to this issue, we still do not have a resolution for the system VM clock drift on Xen (CLOUDSTACK-2492 [1]).
Thanks,
-John
[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2492
On May 20, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:50PM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>>
>> On May 17, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.zhou@leaseweb.com)
>>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>>>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So I am confused looks like Nicolas was not using this feature as it was not
>>>> supported for Vmware any way so how is upgrade blocked?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Animesh, I talked with nicolas and the way I understand it is that they had to
>>>> enable SG to set their VLANs in advanced zone the way they needed to.
>>>> They actually did not use the SG functionality. Beats me but I don't know
>>>> 2.2.14(13)
>>> [Animesh>] I am not sure why would SG be needed to set their VLANs in advanced zone?
>>
>> I think only someone with knowledge of 2.2.14 would understand that.
>>
>>> If Anthony's patch is available in 4.1 wouldn't it fix the issue or is it that upgrade gets stuck in intermediate step during upgrade to 4.0?
>>
>> I don't know. My understanding is that Anthony's patch won't be usable for vmware hypervisor.
>
> So we are at a bit of an impasse here, and I'm not sure that we have
> figured out what our options might even be.
>
> Here's the situation:
>
> We have people stuck on 2.x right now that were using SG's within
> Advanced Zones. That feature seems to have been dropped from the code
> from before CloudStack was in the ASF. We have work in-progress for
> 4.2 to make that feature a feature again. The 4.2 work does *not*
> include VMware environments.
>
> We have some decisions to make:
>
> Decision 1: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until the work in
> progress is complete for Xen and KVM (and tested)?
>
> Decision 2: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until *both* the
> Xen/KVM implementation and a VMware implementation exist?
>
> Decision 3: Do we solve the VMware upgrade path by ensuring that the
> right DB bits exist to transition an installation from 2.x to 4.1 in a
> way that drops SG support in advanced zones using Vmware HVs?
>
> Decision 4: Do we keep people in this situation stranded on 2.x?
>
> I'm personally frustrated that we have users stuck on 2.x right now.
> This is happened to us a couple of times since the project came to
> Apache, where the community has found out that something was dropped or
> effectively eaten away by "bit rot". I am, however, thankful that we are
> able to make decisions about features health as a community going forward.
>
> I'd appreciate if others can bring their ideas / thoughts to this thread
> so that we can move forward. I'm asking for tactical ideas here... If
> I'm not clear on the issues as stated so far, correct me please.
>
> If I don't hear anything over the next day or so, I'm going to
> start a VOTE thread to accept the current state of things as is for 4.1
> and move forward with a 4.1 release. This is not my preference, but
> without specific suggestions to resolve the problem, there isn't much else
> I can see doing get past our current impasse.
>
> -chip
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
May I humbly suggest that the configuration (SG + Advanced + VMWare) was
never supported and the end user got themselves into an unfortunate
situation by using an unsupported configuration (even if the software let
them do it).
I have perused both 2.2.13 and 2.2.14 install guides and it is quite clear
that security groups are only supported with Xen and KVM, for basic zone.
On 5/20/13 12:36 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:50PM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>>
>> On May 17, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>><an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
>> >> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
>> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> >> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.zhou@leaseweb.com)
>> >> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1
>>vs 4.2
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On May 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>> >> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> So I am confused looks like Nicolas was not using this feature as
>>it was not
>> >> supported for Vmware any way so how is upgrade blocked?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Animesh, I talked with nicolas and the way I understand it is that
>>they had to
>> >> enable SG to set their VLANs in advanced zone the way they needed to.
>> >> They actually did not use the SG functionality. Beats me but I don't
>>know
>> >> 2.2.14(13)
>> > [Animesh>] I am not sure why would SG be needed to set their VLANs in
>>advanced zone?
>>
>> I think only someone with knowledge of 2.2.14 would understand that.
>>
>> > If Anthony's patch is available in 4.1 wouldn't it fix the issue or
>>is it that upgrade gets stuck in intermediate step during upgrade to 4.0?
>>
>> I don't know. My understanding is that Anthony's patch won't be usable
>>for vmware hypervisor.
>
>So we are at a bit of an impasse here, and I'm not sure that we have
>figured out what our options might even be.
>
>Here's the situation:
>
>We have people stuck on 2.x right now that were using SG's within
>Advanced Zones. That feature seems to have been dropped from the code
>from before CloudStack was in the ASF. We have work in-progress for
>4.2 to make that feature a feature again. The 4.2 work does *not*
>include VMware environments.
>
>We have some decisions to make:
>
>Decision 1: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until the work in
>progress is complete for Xen and KVM (and tested)?
>
>Decision 2: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until *both* the
>Xen/KVM implementation and a VMware implementation exist?
>
>Decision 3: Do we solve the VMware upgrade path by ensuring that the
>right DB bits exist to transition an installation from 2.x to 4.1 in a
>way that drops SG support in advanced zones using Vmware HVs?
>
>Decision 4: Do we keep people in this situation stranded on 2.x?
>
>I'm personally frustrated that we have users stuck on 2.x right now.
>This is happened to us a couple of times since the project came to
>Apache, where the community has found out that something was dropped or
>effectively eaten away by "bit rot". I am, however, thankful that we are
>able to make decisions about features health as a community going forward.
>
>I'd appreciate if others can bring their ideas / thoughts to this thread
>so that we can move forward. I'm asking for tactical ideas here... If
>I'm not clear on the issues as stated so far, correct me please.
>
>If I don't hear anything over the next day or so, I'm going to
>start a VOTE thread to accept the current state of things as is for 4.1
>and move forward with a 4.1 release. This is not my preference, but
>without specific suggestions to resolve the problem, there isn't much
>else
>I can see doing get past our current impasse.
>
>-chip
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:50PM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>
> On May 17, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.zhou@leaseweb.com)
> >> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> >> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So I am confused looks like Nicolas was not using this feature as it was not
> >> supported for Vmware any way so how is upgrade blocked?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Animesh, I talked with nicolas and the way I understand it is that they had to
> >> enable SG to set their VLANs in advanced zone the way they needed to.
> >> They actually did not use the SG functionality. Beats me but I don't know
> >> 2.2.14(13)
> > [Animesh>] I am not sure why would SG be needed to set their VLANs in advanced zone?
>
> I think only someone with knowledge of 2.2.14 would understand that.
>
> > If Anthony's patch is available in 4.1 wouldn't it fix the issue or is it that upgrade gets stuck in intermediate step during upgrade to 4.0?
>
> I don't know. My understanding is that Anthony's patch won't be usable for vmware hypervisor.
So we are at a bit of an impasse here, and I'm not sure that we have
figured out what our options might even be.
Here's the situation:
We have people stuck on 2.x right now that were using SG's within
Advanced Zones. That feature seems to have been dropped from the code
from before CloudStack was in the ASF. We have work in-progress for
4.2 to make that feature a feature again. The 4.2 work does *not*
include VMware environments.
We have some decisions to make:
Decision 1: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until the work in
progress is complete for Xen and KVM (and tested)?
Decision 2: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until *both* the
Xen/KVM implementation and a VMware implementation exist?
Decision 3: Do we solve the VMware upgrade path by ensuring that the
right DB bits exist to transition an installation from 2.x to 4.1 in a
way that drops SG support in advanced zones using Vmware HVs?
Decision 4: Do we keep people in this situation stranded on 2.x?
I'm personally frustrated that we have users stuck on 2.x right now.
This is happened to us a couple of times since the project came to
Apache, where the community has found out that something was dropped or
effectively eaten away by "bit rot". I am, however, thankful that we are
able to make decisions about features health as a community going forward.
I'd appreciate if others can bring their ideas / thoughts to this thread
so that we can move forward. I'm asking for tactical ideas here... If
I'm not clear on the issues as stated so far, correct me please.
If I don't hear anything over the next day or so, I'm going to
start a VOTE thread to accept the current state of things as is for 4.1
and move forward with a 4.1 release. This is not my preference, but
without specific suggestions to resolve the problem, there isn't much else
I can see doing get past our current impasse.
-chip
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
On May 17, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.zhou@leaseweb.com)
>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>>
>>
>> On May 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
>> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So I am confused looks like Nicolas was not using this feature as it was not
>> supported for Vmware any way so how is upgrade blocked?
>>>
>>
>> Animesh, I talked with nicolas and the way I understand it is that they had to
>> enable SG to set their VLANs in advanced zone the way they needed to.
>> They actually did not use the SG functionality. Beats me but I don't know
>> 2.2.14(13)
> [Animesh>] I am not sure why would SG be needed to set their VLANs in advanced zone?
I think only someone with knowledge of 2.2.14 would understand that.
> If Anthony's patch is available in 4.1 wouldn't it fix the issue or is it that upgrade gets stuck in intermediate step during upgrade to 4.0?
I don't know. My understanding is that Anthony's patch won't be usable for vmware hypervisor.
>
>>
>> -sebastien
>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Anthony Xu [mailto:Xuefei.Xu@citrix.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:18 AM
>>>> To: 'Chip Childers'; dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Wei Zhou
>>>> (w.zhou@leaseweb.com)
>>>> Subject: RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs
>>>> 4.2
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid it might introduce extra effort to allow them to use SG
>>>> again if they manage to upgrade to 4.1.
>>>> I already checked in the patch in 4-2-advanced-zone-security-group
>>>> from master and did some basic tests.
>>>> Wei Zhou kindly agreed to do more tests in that branch and add some
>>>> integration test cases. I think after this we can merge this branch
>>>> to master and 4.1.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Anthony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:01 AM
>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>> Cc: Anthony Xu
>>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs
>>>> 4.2
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 03:59:06PM +0200,
>>>> nicolas.lamirault@orange.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Le 16/05/2013 15:56, Chip Childers a écrit :
>>>>>> If we were able to upgrade you correctly to 4.1, but security
>>>>>> groups were not yet functional, would that suffice?
>>>>>
>>>>> yes.
>>>>
>>>> Anthony,
>>>>
>>>> Since VMware support for SG's in Advanced zones isn't in your current
>>>> scope for the feature work, is there a method to enable an upgrade if
>>>> SG's aren't actually in use but the user's are blocked from upgrades now?
>
RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:runseb@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.zhou@leaseweb.com)
> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>
>
> On May 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> > So I am confused looks like Nicolas was not using this feature as it was not
> supported for Vmware any way so how is upgrade blocked?
> >
>
> Animesh, I talked with nicolas and the way I understand it is that they had to
> enable SG to set their VLANs in advanced zone the way they needed to.
> They actually did not use the SG functionality. Beats me but I don't know
> 2.2.14(13)
[Animesh>] I am not sure why would SG be needed to set their VLANs in advanced zone? If Anthony's patch is available in 4.1 wouldn't it fix the issue or is it that upgrade gets stuck in intermediate step during upgrade to 4.0?
>
> -sebastien
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Anthony Xu [mailto:Xuefei.Xu@citrix.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:18 AM
> >> To: 'Chip Childers'; dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Wei Zhou
> >> (w.zhou@leaseweb.com)
> >> Subject: RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs
> >> 4.2
> >>
> >> I'm afraid it might introduce extra effort to allow them to use SG
> >> again if they manage to upgrade to 4.1.
> >> I already checked in the patch in 4-2-advanced-zone-security-group
> >> from master and did some basic tests.
> >> Wei Zhou kindly agreed to do more tests in that branch and add some
> >> integration test cases. I think after this we can merge this branch
> >> to master and 4.1.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Anthony
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:01 AM
> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> Cc: Anthony Xu
> >> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs
> >> 4.2
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 03:59:06PM +0200,
> >> nicolas.lamirault@orange.com
> >> wrote:
> >>> Le 16/05/2013 15:56, Chip Childers a écrit :
> >>>> If we were able to upgrade you correctly to 4.1, but security
> >>>> groups were not yet functional, would that suffice?
> >>>
> >>> yes.
> >>
> >> Anthony,
> >>
> >> Since VMware support for SG's in Advanced zones isn't in your current
> >> scope for the feature work, is there a method to enable an upgrade if
> >> SG's aren't actually in use but the user's are blocked from upgrades now?
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
On May 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com> wrote:
> So I am confused looks like Nicolas was not using this feature as it was not supported for Vmware any way so how is upgrade blocked?
>
Animesh, I talked with nicolas and the way I understand it is that they had to enable SG to set their VLANs in advanced zone the way they needed to. They actually did not use the SG functionality. Beats me but I don't know 2.2.14(13)
-sebastien
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anthony Xu [mailto:Xuefei.Xu@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:18 AM
>> To: 'Chip Childers'; dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Wei Zhou
>> (w.zhou@leaseweb.com)
>> Subject: RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>>
>> I'm afraid it might introduce extra effort to allow them to use SG again if they
>> manage to upgrade to 4.1.
>> I already checked in the patch in 4-2-advanced-zone-security-group from
>> master and did some basic tests.
>> Wei Zhou kindly agreed to do more tests in that branch and add some
>> integration test cases. I think after this we can merge this branch to master
>> and 4.1.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Anthony
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:01 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: Anthony Xu
>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>>
>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 03:59:06PM +0200, nicolas.lamirault@orange.com
>> wrote:
>>> Le 16/05/2013 15:56, Chip Childers a écrit :
>>>> If we were able to upgrade you correctly to 4.1, but security groups
>>>> were not yet functional, would that suffice?
>>>
>>> yes.
>>
>> Anthony,
>>
>> Since VMware support for SG's in Advanced zones isn't in your current scope
>> for the feature work, is there a method to enable an upgrade if SG's aren't
>> actually in use but the user's are blocked from upgrades now?
RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
So I am confused looks like Nicolas was not using this feature as it was not supported for Vmware any way so how is upgrade blocked?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Xu [mailto:Xuefei.Xu@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:18 AM
> To: 'Chip Childers'; dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Wei Zhou
> (w.zhou@leaseweb.com)
> Subject: RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>
> I'm afraid it might introduce extra effort to allow them to use SG again if they
> manage to upgrade to 4.1.
> I already checked in the patch in 4-2-advanced-zone-security-group from
> master and did some basic tests.
> Wei Zhou kindly agreed to do more tests in that branch and add some
> integration test cases. I think after this we can merge this branch to master
> and 4.1.
>
> Thanks
> Anthony
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:01 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Anthony Xu
> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 03:59:06PM +0200, nicolas.lamirault@orange.com
> wrote:
> > Le 16/05/2013 15:56, Chip Childers a écrit :
> > >If we were able to upgrade you correctly to 4.1, but security groups
> > >were not yet functional, would that suffice?
> >
> > yes.
>
> Anthony,
>
> Since VMware support for SG's in Advanced zones isn't in your current scope
> for the feature work, is there a method to enable an upgrade if SG's aren't
> actually in use but the user's are blocked from upgrades now?
RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Anthony Xu <Xu...@citrix.com>.
I'm afraid it might introduce extra effort to allow them to use SG again if they manage to upgrade to 4.1.
I already checked in the patch in 4-2-advanced-zone-security-group from master and did some basic tests.
Wei Zhou kindly agreed to do more tests in that branch and add some integration test cases. I think after this we can merge this branch to master and 4.1.
Thanks
Anthony
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:01 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Anthony Xu
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 03:59:06PM +0200, nicolas.lamirault@orange.com wrote:
> Le 16/05/2013 15:56, Chip Childers a écrit :
> >If we were able to upgrade you correctly to 4.1, but security groups
> >were not yet functional, would that suffice?
>
> yes.
Anthony,
Since VMware support for SG's in Advanced zones isn't in your current scope for the feature work, is there a method to enable an upgrade if SG's aren't actually in use but the user's are blocked from upgrades now?
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 03:59:06PM +0200, nicolas.lamirault@orange.com wrote:
> Le 16/05/2013 15:56, Chip Childers a écrit :
> >If we were able to upgrade you correctly to 4.1, but security groups were not yet
> >functional, would that suffice?
>
> yes.
Anthony,
Since VMware support for SG's in Advanced zones isn't in your current
scope for the feature work, is there a method to enable an upgrade if
SG's aren't actually in use but the user's are blocked from upgrades
now?
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by ni...@orange.com.
Le 16/05/2013 15:56, Chip Childers a écrit :
> If we were able to upgrade you correctly to 4.1, but security groups were not yet
> functional, would that suffice?
yes.
--
Nicolas Lamirault
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 03:53:31PM +0200, nicolas.lamirault@orange.com wrote:
> Our PROD is in 2.2.13, using Advaned Zone and SG enabled.
> But we don't use SG features. We use vmWare.
> We try to upgrade our pre-production environment to 4.1, but we
> failed due to the CLOUDSTACK-2463 bug.
> We have not managed to update 4.0, and we would pass the 4.1.
Nicolas:
If we were able to upgrade you correctly to 4.1, but security groups were not yet
functional, would that suffice?
>
> Le 15/05/2013 21:25, Chip Childers a écrit :
> >Adding relevant folks from previous discussions of this feature to the
> >CC list.
> >
> >One other note... From what I can tell, the work intended for 4.2 to
> >re-enable security groups within an advanced zone is limited to Xen and
> >KVM. I believe that Nicolas (the issue reporter) is using VMware.
> >
> >We do have a note from Wei (below) highlighting his desire to see this
> >feature as well (although, Wei, what HV are you using?).
> >
> >Thoughts on what to do?
> >
> >-chip
> >
> >On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 09:20:06AM -0700, Alex Huang wrote:
> >>I'm a very strong believer that CloudStack releases should always be upgradable from previous releases. We can't strand our user base on a previous release.
> >>
> >>--Alex
> >>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: Wei ZHOU [mailto:ustcweizhou@gmail.com]
> >>>Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:28 AM
> >>>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >>>Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
> >>>
> >>>Half of our platforms are on 2.2.14 (advanced zone with security groups).
> >>>These platform work well. We are looking for a way to upgrade to 4.* for
> >>>more functionalities, so that we do not need to take the difference of
> >>>cloudstack version into account in development.
> >>>
> >>>As I know, the citrix guys are working on this. Jessica Wang said the feature
> >>>will be merged into master branch soon.It looks the coding is almost done.
> >>>
> >>>I hope this feature could be included in 4.1, of course. However, we also
> >>>need some days for testing and bug fix. It means cloudstack 4.1 will delay for
> >>>uncertain days (it is very bad, right?). It is a difficult choice.
> >>>
> >>>I do not know how many companies are using 2.2.14 (advanced zone with
> >>>security groups) and eager to upgrade. I will join the dev and testing if
> >>>needed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>2013/5/15 Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> >>>
> >>>>Sebastian re-opened CLOUDSTACK-2463 due to users wanting to upgrade
> >>>>from 2.x to 4.1. This relates to the security groups feature being
> >>>>available when using VLANs in an advanced networking zone. This
> >>>>feature was apparently broken in the 3.x series, and is not slated to
> >>>>be reintroduced until 4.2.
> >>>>
> >>>>This is a horrible situation, and one that we've now encountered for a
> >>>>third time.
> >>>>
> >>>>IMO, we have 2 very specific options:
> >>>>
> >>>>1) We pull that new feature into 4.1, and do the relevant testing.
> >>>>
> >>>>2) We do not pull that feature into 4.1, and release as is with a
> >>>>strong message in the release notes highlighting that we know that 2.x
> >>>>to 4.1 will not support it (and state that those users requiring the
> >>>>feature should wait for 4.2).
> >>>>
> >>>>At this point, I don't have a preference. We probably need to
> >>>>understand the effort for (1), as well as understand who would do that
> >>>>work (dev AND testing).
> >>>>
> >>>>Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>>-chip
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Nicolas Lamirault
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by ni...@orange.com.
Our PROD is in 2.2.13, using Advaned Zone and SG enabled.
But we don't use SG features. We use vmWare.
We try to upgrade our pre-production environment to 4.1, but we failed
due to the CLOUDSTACK-2463 bug.
We have not managed to update 4.0, and we would pass the 4.1.
Le 15/05/2013 21:25, Chip Childers a écrit :
> Adding relevant folks from previous discussions of this feature to the
> CC list.
>
> One other note... From what I can tell, the work intended for 4.2 to
> re-enable security groups within an advanced zone is limited to Xen and
> KVM. I believe that Nicolas (the issue reporter) is using VMware.
>
> We do have a note from Wei (below) highlighting his desire to see this
> feature as well (although, Wei, what HV are you using?).
>
> Thoughts on what to do?
>
> -chip
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 09:20:06AM -0700, Alex Huang wrote:
>> I'm a very strong believer that CloudStack releases should always be upgradable from previous releases. We can't strand our user base on a previous release.
>>
>> --Alex
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Wei ZHOU [mailto:ustcweizhou@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:28 AM
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>>>
>>> Half of our platforms are on 2.2.14 (advanced zone with security groups).
>>> These platform work well. We are looking for a way to upgrade to 4.* for
>>> more functionalities, so that we do not need to take the difference of
>>> cloudstack version into account in development.
>>>
>>> As I know, the citrix guys are working on this. Jessica Wang said the feature
>>> will be merged into master branch soon.It looks the coding is almost done.
>>>
>>> I hope this feature could be included in 4.1, of course. However, we also
>>> need some days for testing and bug fix. It means cloudstack 4.1 will delay for
>>> uncertain days (it is very bad, right?). It is a difficult choice.
>>>
>>> I do not know how many companies are using 2.2.14 (advanced zone with
>>> security groups) and eager to upgrade. I will join the dev and testing if
>>> needed.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/5/15 Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
>>>
>>>> Sebastian re-opened CLOUDSTACK-2463 due to users wanting to upgrade
>>>> from 2.x to 4.1. This relates to the security groups feature being
>>>> available when using VLANs in an advanced networking zone. This
>>>> feature was apparently broken in the 3.x series, and is not slated to
>>>> be reintroduced until 4.2.
>>>>
>>>> This is a horrible situation, and one that we've now encountered for a
>>>> third time.
>>>>
>>>> IMO, we have 2 very specific options:
>>>>
>>>> 1) We pull that new feature into 4.1, and do the relevant testing.
>>>>
>>>> 2) We do not pull that feature into 4.1, and release as is with a
>>>> strong message in the release notes highlighting that we know that 2.x
>>>> to 4.1 will not support it (and state that those users requiring the
>>>> feature should wait for 4.2).
>>>>
>>>> At this point, I don't have a preference. We probably need to
>>>> understand the effort for (1), as well as understand who would do that
>>>> work (dev AND testing).
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> -chip
>>>>
>>
>
>
--
Nicolas Lamirault
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net>.
I'd ask for this be to enabled in vmware/vsphere is possible.
There are by far more vmware users in corporate/enteprise world than kvm and xen.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:26 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Anthony Xu; Manan Shah; Angeline Shen; Alena Prokharchyk
> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>
> Adding relevant folks from previous discussions of this feature to the CC list.
>
> One other note... From what I can tell, the work intended for 4.2 to re-
> enable security groups within an advanced zone is limited to Xen and KVM. I
> believe that Nicolas (the issue reporter) is using VMware.
>
> We do have a note from Wei (below) highlighting his desire to see this
> feature as well (although, Wei, what HV are you using?).
>
> Thoughts on what to do?
>
> -chip
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 09:20:06AM -0700, Alex Huang wrote:
> > I'm a very strong believer that CloudStack releases should always be
> upgradable from previous releases. We can't strand our user base on a
> previous release.
> >
> > --Alex
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wei ZHOU [mailto:ustcweizhou@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:28 AM
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1
> > > vs 4.2
> > >
> > > Half of our platforms are on 2.2.14 (advanced zone with security groups).
> > > These platform work well. We are looking for a way to upgrade to 4.*
> > > for more functionalities, so that we do not need to take the
> > > difference of cloudstack version into account in development.
> > >
> > > As I know, the citrix guys are working on this. Jessica Wang said
> > > the feature will be merged into master branch soon.It looks the coding is
> almost done.
> > >
> > > I hope this feature could be included in 4.1, of course. However, we
> > > also need some days for testing and bug fix. It means cloudstack 4.1
> > > will delay for uncertain days (it is very bad, right?). It is a difficult choice.
> > >
> > > I do not know how many companies are using 2.2.14 (advanced zone
> > > with security groups) and eager to upgrade. I will join the dev and
> > > testing if needed.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/5/15 Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> > >
> > > > Sebastian re-opened CLOUDSTACK-2463 due to users wanting to
> > > > upgrade from 2.x to 4.1. This relates to the security groups
> > > > feature being available when using VLANs in an advanced networking
> > > > zone. This feature was apparently broken in the 3.x series, and
> > > > is not slated to be reintroduced until 4.2.
> > > >
> > > > This is a horrible situation, and one that we've now encountered
> > > > for a third time.
> > > >
> > > > IMO, we have 2 very specific options:
> > > >
> > > > 1) We pull that new feature into 4.1, and do the relevant testing.
> > > >
> > > > 2) We do not pull that feature into 4.1, and release as is with a
> > > > strong message in the release notes highlighting that we know that
> > > > 2.x to 4.1 will not support it (and state that those users
> > > > requiring the feature should wait for 4.2).
> > > >
> > > > At this point, I don't have a preference. We probably need to
> > > > understand the effort for (1), as well as understand who would do
> > > > that work (dev AND testing).
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > -chip
> > > >
> >
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
Adding relevant folks from previous discussions of this feature to the
CC list.
One other note... From what I can tell, the work intended for 4.2 to
re-enable security groups within an advanced zone is limited to Xen and
KVM. I believe that Nicolas (the issue reporter) is using VMware.
We do have a note from Wei (below) highlighting his desire to see this
feature as well (although, Wei, what HV are you using?).
Thoughts on what to do?
-chip
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 09:20:06AM -0700, Alex Huang wrote:
> I'm a very strong believer that CloudStack releases should always be upgradable from previous releases. We can't strand our user base on a previous release.
>
> --Alex
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wei ZHOU [mailto:ustcweizhou@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:28 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
> >
> > Half of our platforms are on 2.2.14 (advanced zone with security groups).
> > These platform work well. We are looking for a way to upgrade to 4.* for
> > more functionalities, so that we do not need to take the difference of
> > cloudstack version into account in development.
> >
> > As I know, the citrix guys are working on this. Jessica Wang said the feature
> > will be merged into master branch soon.It looks the coding is almost done.
> >
> > I hope this feature could be included in 4.1, of course. However, we also
> > need some days for testing and bug fix. It means cloudstack 4.1 will delay for
> > uncertain days (it is very bad, right?). It is a difficult choice.
> >
> > I do not know how many companies are using 2.2.14 (advanced zone with
> > security groups) and eager to upgrade. I will join the dev and testing if
> > needed.
> >
> >
> > 2013/5/15 Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> >
> > > Sebastian re-opened CLOUDSTACK-2463 due to users wanting to upgrade
> > > from 2.x to 4.1. This relates to the security groups feature being
> > > available when using VLANs in an advanced networking zone. This
> > > feature was apparently broken in the 3.x series, and is not slated to
> > > be reintroduced until 4.2.
> > >
> > > This is a horrible situation, and one that we've now encountered for a
> > > third time.
> > >
> > > IMO, we have 2 very specific options:
> > >
> > > 1) We pull that new feature into 4.1, and do the relevant testing.
> > >
> > > 2) We do not pull that feature into 4.1, and release as is with a
> > > strong message in the release notes highlighting that we know that 2.x
> > > to 4.1 will not support it (and state that those users requiring the
> > > feature should wait for 4.2).
> > >
> > > At this point, I don't have a preference. We probably need to
> > > understand the effort for (1), as well as understand who would do that
> > > work (dev AND testing).
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > -chip
> > >
>
RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Anthony Xu <Xu...@citrix.com>.
I'll work on 4.2, after that, people can merge it to 4.1.
Anthony
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:25 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 09:20:06AM -0700, Alex Huang wrote:
> I'm a very strong believer that CloudStack releases should always be upgradable from previous releases. We can't strand our user base on a previous release.
Agreed conceptually. Let's be clear though... these users have been stranded for many versions now.
I'm OK with focusing on fixing this for 4.1.0... but we need someone(s) to commit to doing the work.
>
> --Alex
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wei ZHOU [mailto:ustcweizhou@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:28 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1
> > vs 4.2
> >
> > Half of our platforms are on 2.2.14 (advanced zone with security groups).
> > These platform work well. We are looking for a way to upgrade to 4.*
> > for more functionalities, so that we do not need to take the
> > difference of cloudstack version into account in development.
> >
> > As I know, the citrix guys are working on this. Jessica Wang said
> > the feature will be merged into master branch soon.It looks the coding is almost done.
> >
> > I hope this feature could be included in 4.1, of course. However, we
> > also need some days for testing and bug fix. It means cloudstack 4.1
> > will delay for uncertain days (it is very bad, right?). It is a difficult choice.
> >
> > I do not know how many companies are using 2.2.14 (advanced zone
> > with security groups) and eager to upgrade. I will join the dev and
> > testing if needed.
> >
> >
> > 2013/5/15 Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> >
> > > Sebastian re-opened CLOUDSTACK-2463 due to users wanting to
> > > upgrade from 2.x to 4.1. This relates to the security groups
> > > feature being available when using VLANs in an advanced networking
> > > zone. This feature was apparently broken in the 3.x series, and
> > > is not slated to be reintroduced until 4.2.
> > >
> > > This is a horrible situation, and one that we've now encountered
> > > for a third time.
> > >
> > > IMO, we have 2 very specific options:
> > >
> > > 1) We pull that new feature into 4.1, and do the relevant testing.
> > >
> > > 2) We do not pull that feature into 4.1, and release as is with a
> > > strong message in the release notes highlighting that we know that
> > > 2.x to 4.1 will not support it (and state that those users
> > > requiring the feature should wait for 4.2).
> > >
> > > At this point, I don't have a preference. We probably need to
> > > understand the effort for (1), as well as understand who would do
> > > that work (dev AND testing).
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > -chip
> > >
>
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 09:20:06AM -0700, Alex Huang wrote:
> I'm a very strong believer that CloudStack releases should always be upgradable from previous releases. We can't strand our user base on a previous release.
Agreed conceptually. Let's be clear though... these users have been
stranded for many versions now.
I'm OK with focusing on fixing this for 4.1.0... but we need someone(s) to
commit to doing the work.
>
> --Alex
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wei ZHOU [mailto:ustcweizhou@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:28 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
> >
> > Half of our platforms are on 2.2.14 (advanced zone with security groups).
> > These platform work well. We are looking for a way to upgrade to 4.* for
> > more functionalities, so that we do not need to take the difference of
> > cloudstack version into account in development.
> >
> > As I know, the citrix guys are working on this. Jessica Wang said the feature
> > will be merged into master branch soon.It looks the coding is almost done.
> >
> > I hope this feature could be included in 4.1, of course. However, we also
> > need some days for testing and bug fix. It means cloudstack 4.1 will delay for
> > uncertain days (it is very bad, right?). It is a difficult choice.
> >
> > I do not know how many companies are using 2.2.14 (advanced zone with
> > security groups) and eager to upgrade. I will join the dev and testing if
> > needed.
> >
> >
> > 2013/5/15 Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> >
> > > Sebastian re-opened CLOUDSTACK-2463 due to users wanting to upgrade
> > > from 2.x to 4.1. This relates to the security groups feature being
> > > available when using VLANs in an advanced networking zone. This
> > > feature was apparently broken in the 3.x series, and is not slated to
> > > be reintroduced until 4.2.
> > >
> > > This is a horrible situation, and one that we've now encountered for a
> > > third time.
> > >
> > > IMO, we have 2 very specific options:
> > >
> > > 1) We pull that new feature into 4.1, and do the relevant testing.
> > >
> > > 2) We do not pull that feature into 4.1, and release as is with a
> > > strong message in the release notes highlighting that we know that 2.x
> > > to 4.1 will not support it (and state that those users requiring the
> > > feature should wait for 4.2).
> > >
> > > At this point, I don't have a preference. We probably need to
> > > understand the effort for (1), as well as understand who would do that
> > > work (dev AND testing).
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > -chip
> > >
>
RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.
I'm a very strong believer that CloudStack releases should always be upgradable from previous releases. We can't strand our user base on a previous release.
--Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wei ZHOU [mailto:ustcweizhou@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:28 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
>
> Half of our platforms are on 2.2.14 (advanced zone with security groups).
> These platform work well. We are looking for a way to upgrade to 4.* for
> more functionalities, so that we do not need to take the difference of
> cloudstack version into account in development.
>
> As I know, the citrix guys are working on this. Jessica Wang said the feature
> will be merged into master branch soon.It looks the coding is almost done.
>
> I hope this feature could be included in 4.1, of course. However, we also
> need some days for testing and bug fix. It means cloudstack 4.1 will delay for
> uncertain days (it is very bad, right?). It is a difficult choice.
>
> I do not know how many companies are using 2.2.14 (advanced zone with
> security groups) and eager to upgrade. I will join the dev and testing if
> needed.
>
>
> 2013/5/15 Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
>
> > Sebastian re-opened CLOUDSTACK-2463 due to users wanting to upgrade
> > from 2.x to 4.1. This relates to the security groups feature being
> > available when using VLANs in an advanced networking zone. This
> > feature was apparently broken in the 3.x series, and is not slated to
> > be reintroduced until 4.2.
> >
> > This is a horrible situation, and one that we've now encountered for a
> > third time.
> >
> > IMO, we have 2 very specific options:
> >
> > 1) We pull that new feature into 4.1, and do the relevant testing.
> >
> > 2) We do not pull that feature into 4.1, and release as is with a
> > strong message in the release notes highlighting that we know that 2.x
> > to 4.1 will not support it (and state that those users requiring the
> > feature should wait for 4.2).
> >
> > At this point, I don't have a preference. We probably need to
> > understand the effort for (1), as well as understand who would do that
> > work (dev AND testing).
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -chip
> >
Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Posted by Wei ZHOU <us...@gmail.com>.
Half of our platforms are on 2.2.14 (advanced zone with security groups).
These platform work well. We are looking for a way to upgrade to 4.* for
more functionalities, so that we do not need to take the difference of
cloudstack version into account in development.
As I know, the citrix guys are working on this. Jessica Wang said the
feature will be merged into master branch soon.It looks the coding is
almost done.
I hope this feature could be included in 4.1, of course. However, we also
need some days for testing and bug fix. It means cloudstack 4.1 will delay
for uncertain days (it is very bad, right?). It is a difficult choice.
I do not know how many companies are using 2.2.14 (advanced zone with
security groups) and eager to upgrade. I will join the dev and testing if
needed.
2013/5/15 Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> Sebastian re-opened CLOUDSTACK-2463 due to users wanting to upgrade from
> 2.x to 4.1. This relates to the security groups feature being available
> when using VLANs in an advanced networking zone. This feature was
> apparently broken in the 3.x series, and is not slated to be
> reintroduced until 4.2.
>
> This is a horrible situation, and one that we've now encountered for a
> third time.
>
> IMO, we have 2 very specific options:
>
> 1) We pull that new feature into 4.1, and do the relevant testing.
>
> 2) We do not pull that feature into 4.1, and release as is with a strong
> message in the release notes highlighting that we know that 2.x to 4.1
> will not support it (and state that those users requiring the feature
> should wait for 4.2).
>
> At this point, I don't have a preference. We probably need to
> understand the effort for (1), as well as understand who would do that
> work (dev AND testing).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -chip
>