You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> on 2014/10/20 15:32:14 UTC
xenserver 6.5
Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an idea of
how much effort that is going to be?
--
Daan
Re: xenserver 6.5
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Adrian, I think your questions/considerations are right and I have
been wondering about the same things.
On one side it should be "allowed unless" instead of "only allowed
if". On the other hand therre are sure to be some features extra or
some that might have a slightly different semantics that might hinder
or impair cloudstack.
Not sure what the right answer is. Hope that someone with a view on
the architectural decisions behind it can shed some light.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Adrian Lewis
<ad...@alsiconsulting.co.uk> wrote:
> With XS 6.5 released, is anyone able to comment on:
>
> 1. Does the 4.5 branch need updating to support it?
> 2. If the changes are so minor, will we see support in 4.3.x or 4.4.x as
> well?
>
> Do we consider this to be a feature or bug? If the code for the resource
> class stays exactly the same and the only thing blocking the use of XS 6.5
> is the checks that CS does when adding a new host, would this not be
> considered as a bug? Technically the validation is broken as its intent is
> to determine whether or not the current resource class can handle the
> hypervisor. If the current resource class can in fact handle XS6.5 but the
> validation code says it can't, isn’t this is a bug?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adrian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Mackey [mailto:tmackey@gmail.com]
> Sent: 20 October 2014 20:10
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5
>
> Correct on both counts
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> thanks Tim, from this I take that hypervisor versions are hardcoded
>> still, and xenserver 6.5 is supported since 4.5. correct?
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Tim Mackey <tm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Daan,
>> >
>> > Here are the relevant commits:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2b
>> e02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723
>> >
>> >
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b7
>> f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72
>> >
>> >
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=67
>> 4af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59
>> >
>> > Mike,
>> >
>> > Here's an example of the type of DB changes:
>> >
>> >
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f=
>> setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4c
>> ddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089b
>> 6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=f212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
>> > mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a DB
>> > update.
>> > >
>> > > Can you clarify that?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland <
>> daan.hoogland@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db
>> > changes...
>> > > Do
>> > > > you have a commit id?
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey <tm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things
>> > > > > work
>> > > better
>> > > > > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues,
>> being
>> > > able
>> > > > > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database
>> > update.
>> > > > So
>> > > > > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the
>> various
>> > > > > pre-release builds since beta.2).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
>> > > > > mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer
>> > resource
>> > > > > class
>> > > > > > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't
>> > > > > > think you
>> > > need
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of
>> XenServer,
>> > > then
>> > > > > > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle
>> > > > > > the discrepancies.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis <
>> > > adrian@alsiconsulting.co.uk
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no
>> > > > > > > issues
>> with
>> > > > using
>> > > > > > 6.5
>> > > > > > > when it's released and there are no
>> > > > > > > backwards-compatibility
>> > > problems,
>> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly*
>> > > > > > > told
>> > > that
>> > > > > > newer,
>> > > > > > > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid
>> > > hypervisor?
>> > > > > > > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of
>> > > > > > > XS 6.5
>> > > when
>> > > > it
>> > > > > > > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start
>> using
>> > > it?
>> > > > If
>> > > > > > so,
>> > > > > > > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would
>> > > > > > > it
>> > > require
>> > > > > > > rebuilding?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:Stephen.Turner@citrix.com
>> > > > <javascript:;>]
>> > > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28
>> > > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are
>> > > > > > > large
>> > > > internal
>> > > > > > > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new
>> > > > > > > storage
>> > > > datapath,
>> > > > > > > PVHVM
>> > > > > > > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially
>> unchanged.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Stephen Turner
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com
>> > > <javascript:;>]
>> > > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32
>> > > > > > > To: dev
>> > > > > > > Subject: xenserver 6.5
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or
>> > > > > > > has
>> an
>> > > > idea
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > > how much effort that is going to be?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Daan
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > *Mike Tutkowski*
>> > > > > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>> > > > > > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>> > > > > > o: 303.746.7302
>> > > > > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
>> > > > > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Daan
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > *Mike Tutkowski*
>> > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>> > > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>> > > o: 303.746.7302
>> > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
>> > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>>
--
Daan
RE: xenserver 6.5
Posted by Adrian Lewis <ad...@alsiconsulting.co.uk>.
With XS 6.5 released, is anyone able to comment on:
1. Does the 4.5 branch need updating to support it?
2. If the changes are so minor, will we see support in 4.3.x or 4.4.x as
well?
Do we consider this to be a feature or bug? If the code for the resource
class stays exactly the same and the only thing blocking the use of XS 6.5
is the checks that CS does when adding a new host, would this not be
considered as a bug? Technically the validation is broken as its intent is
to determine whether or not the current resource class can handle the
hypervisor. If the current resource class can in fact handle XS6.5 but the
validation code says it can't, isn’t this is a bug?
Cheers,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Mackey [mailto:tmackey@gmail.com]
Sent: 20 October 2014 20:10
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: xenserver 6.5
Correct on both counts
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> thanks Tim, from this I take that hypervisor versions are hardcoded
> still, and xenserver 6.5 is supported since 4.5. correct?
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Tim Mackey <tm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Daan,
> >
> > Here are the relevant commits:
> >
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2b
> e02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b7
> f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=67
> 4af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Here's an example of the type of DB changes:
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f=
> setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4c
> ddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089b
> 6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=f212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a DB
> > update.
> > >
> > > Can you clarify that?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland <
> daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db
> > changes...
> > > Do
> > > > you have a commit id?
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey <tm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things
> > > > > work
> > > better
> > > > > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues,
> being
> > > able
> > > > > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database
> > update.
> > > > So
> > > > > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the
> various
> > > > > pre-release builds since beta.2).
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > > > > mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer
> > resource
> > > > > class
> > > > > > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't
> > > > > > think you
> > > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of
> XenServer,
> > > then
> > > > > > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle
> > > > > > the discrepancies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis <
> > > adrian@alsiconsulting.co.uk
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no
> > > > > > > issues
> with
> > > > using
> > > > > > 6.5
> > > > > > > when it's released and there are no
> > > > > > > backwards-compatibility
> > > problems,
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly*
> > > > > > > told
> > > that
> > > > > > newer,
> > > > > > > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid
> > > hypervisor?
> > > > > > > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of
> > > > > > > XS 6.5
> > > when
> > > > it
> > > > > > > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start
> using
> > > it?
> > > > If
> > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would
> > > > > > > it
> > > require
> > > > > > > rebuilding?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:Stephen.Turner@citrix.com
> > > > <javascript:;>]
> > > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28
> > > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are
> > > > > > > large
> > > > internal
> > > > > > > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new
> > > > > > > storage
> > > > datapath,
> > > > > > > PVHVM
> > > > > > > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially
> unchanged.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Stephen Turner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>]
> > > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32
> > > > > > > To: dev
> > > > > > > Subject: xenserver 6.5
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or
> > > > > > > has
> an
> > > > idea
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > how much effort that is going to be?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Daan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > > > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > > > > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > > > > > o: 303.746.7302
> > > > > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > > > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Daan
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > > o: 303.746.7302
> > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
Re: xenserver 6.5
Posted by Tim Mackey <tm...@gmail.com>.
Correct on both counts
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> thanks Tim, from this I take that hypervisor versions are hardcoded still,
> and xenserver 6.5 is supported since 4.5. correct?
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Tim Mackey <tm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Daan,
> >
> > Here are the relevant commits:
> >
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2be02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b7f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=674af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Here's an example of the type of DB changes:
> >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f=setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4cddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=f212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a DB
> > update.
> > >
> > > Can you clarify that?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland <
> daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db
> > changes...
> > > Do
> > > > you have a commit id?
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey <tm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things work
> > > better
> > > > > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues,
> being
> > > able
> > > > > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database
> > update.
> > > > So
> > > > > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the
> various
> > > > > pre-release builds since beta.2).
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > > > > mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer
> > resource
> > > > > class
> > > > > > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't think you
> > > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of
> XenServer,
> > > then
> > > > > > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle the
> > > > > > discrepancies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis <
> > > adrian@alsiconsulting.co.uk
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues
> with
> > > > using
> > > > > > 6.5
> > > > > > > when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility
> > > problems,
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told
> > > that
> > > > > > newer,
> > > > > > > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid
> > > hypervisor?
> > > > > > > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5
> > > when
> > > > it
> > > > > > > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start
> using
> > > it?
> > > > If
> > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it
> > > require
> > > > > > > rebuilding?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:Stephen.Turner@citrix.com
> > > > <javascript:;>]
> > > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28
> > > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are large
> > > > internal
> > > > > > > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage
> > > > datapath,
> > > > > > > PVHVM
> > > > > > > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially
> unchanged.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Stephen Turner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>]
> > > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32
> > > > > > > To: dev
> > > > > > > Subject: xenserver 6.5
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has
> an
> > > > idea
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > how much effort that is going to be?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Daan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > > > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > > > > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > > > > > o: 303.746.7302
> > > > > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > > > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Daan
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > > o: 303.746.7302
> > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
Re: xenserver 6.5
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
thanks Tim, from this I take that hypervisor versions are hardcoded still,
and xenserver 6.5 is supported since 4.5. correct?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Tim Mackey <tm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Daan,
>
> Here are the relevant commits:
>
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2be02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b7f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=674af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59
>
> Mike,
>
> Here's an example of the type of DB changes:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f=setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4cddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=f212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a DB
> update.
> >
> > Can you clarify that?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db
> changes...
> > Do
> > > you have a commit id?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey <tm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things work
> > better
> > > > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues, being
> > able
> > > > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database
> update.
> > > So
> > > > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the various
> > > > pre-release builds since beta.2).
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > > > mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer
> resource
> > > > class
> > > > > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't think you
> > need
> > > to
> > > > > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of XenServer,
> > then
> > > > > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle the
> > > > > discrepancies.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis <
> > adrian@alsiconsulting.co.uk
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with
> > > using
> > > > > 6.5
> > > > > > when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility
> > problems,
> > > > > will
> > > > > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told
> > that
> > > > > newer,
> > > > > > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid
> > hypervisor?
> > > > > > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5
> > when
> > > it
> > > > > > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using
> > it?
> > > If
> > > > > so,
> > > > > > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it
> > require
> > > > > > rebuilding?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:Stephen.Turner@citrix.com
> > > <javascript:;>]
> > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28
> > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are large
> > > internal
> > > > > > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage
> > > datapath,
> > > > > > PVHVM
> > > > > > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Stephen Turner
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>]
> > > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32
> > > > > > To: dev
> > > > > > Subject: xenserver 6.5
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an
> > > idea
> > > > of
> > > > > > how much effort that is going to be?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Daan
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > > > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > > > > o: 303.746.7302
> > > > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daan
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > o: 303.746.7302
> > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> >
>
--
Daan
Re: xenserver 6.5
Posted by Tim Mackey <tm...@gmail.com>.
Daan,
Here are the relevant commits:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=2be02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=b7f5e95c8f17cf42d35705872b4210db8c2def72
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=674af6e47313fa18c18536a2daed90d13b9a9a59
Mike,
Here's an example of the type of DB changes:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f=setup/db/db/schema-441to450.sql;h=e6aae8e3d624744af9f19b132fa8f53b5a4cddb5;hp=34d5f8842005f8a2da4df8a9a838d919cc648831;hb=2be02d1f515d8d089b6596127614fe6b8030d723;hpb=f212aa57c32eb05d6a69730e37ac50bdb1f0a268
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a DB update.
>
> Can you clarify that?
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db changes...
> Do
> > you have a commit id?
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey <tm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things work
> better
> > > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues, being
> able
> > > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database update.
> > So
> > > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the various
> > > pre-release builds since beta.2).
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > > mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer resource
> > > class
> > > > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't think you
> need
> > to
> > > > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version.
> > > >
> > > > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of XenServer,
> then
> > > > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle the
> > > > discrepancies.
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis <
> adrian@alsiconsulting.co.uk
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with
> > using
> > > > 6.5
> > > > > when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility
> problems,
> > > > will
> > > > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told
> that
> > > > newer,
> > > > > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid
> hypervisor?
> > > > > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5
> when
> > it
> > > > > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using
> it?
> > If
> > > > so,
> > > > > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it
> require
> > > > > rebuilding?
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:Stephen.Turner@citrix.com
> > <javascript:;>]
> > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28
> > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are large
> > internal
> > > > > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage
> > datapath,
> > > > > PVHVM
> > > > > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Stephen Turner
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>]
> > > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32
> > > > > To: dev
> > > > > Subject: xenserver 6.5
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an
> > idea
> > > of
> > > > > how much effort that is going to be?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Daan
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > > > o: 303.746.7302
> > > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daan
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Mike Tutkowski*
> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> o: 303.746.7302
> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
>
Re: xenserver 6.5
Posted by Mike Tutkowski <mi...@solidfire.com>.
Yeah, Tim, I'm a little unclear of what you mean by requiring a DB update.
Can you clarify that?
Thanks!
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db changes... Do
> you have a commit id?
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey <tm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things work better
> > (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues, being able
> > to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database update.
> So
> > net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the various
> > pre-release builds since beta.2).
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
> > mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer resource
> > class
> > > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't think you need
> to
> > > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version.
> > >
> > > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of XenServer, then
> > > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle the
> > > discrepancies.
> > >
> > > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis <adrian@alsiconsulting.co.uk
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with
> using
> > > 6.5
> > > > when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility problems,
> > > will
> > > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told that
> > > newer,
> > > > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid hypervisor?
> > > > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5 when
> it
> > > > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using it?
> If
> > > so,
> > > > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it require
> > > > rebuilding?
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:Stephen.Turner@citrix.com
> <javascript:;>]
> > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28
> > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5
> > > >
> > > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are large
> internal
> > > > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage
> datapath,
> > > > PVHVM
> > > > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephen Turner
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com <javascript:;>]
> > > > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32
> > > > To: dev
> > > > Subject: xenserver 6.5
> > > >
> > > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an
> idea
> > of
> > > > how much effort that is going to be?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Daan
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > > o: 303.746.7302
> > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
--
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
Re: xenserver 6.5
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Tim, these changes are needed? so 4.4.1 will not work with db changes... Do
you have a commit id?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tim Mackey <tm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things work better
> (commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues, being able
> to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database update. So
> net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the various
> pre-release builds since beta.2).
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
>
> > Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer resource
> class
> > can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't think you need to
> > make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version.
> >
> > If you do see some incompatibility with that version of XenServer, then
> > someone would need to create a new resource class to handle the
> > discrepancies.
> >
> > On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis <ad...@alsiconsulting.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with using
> > 6.5
> > > when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility problems,
> > will
> > > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told that
> > newer,
> > > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid hypervisor?
> > > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5 when it
> > > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using it? If
> > so,
> > > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it require
> > > rebuilding?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:Stephen.Turner@citrix.com <javascript:;>]
> > > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5
> > >
> > > I think it should be minimal, because although there are large internal
> > > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage datapath,
> > > PVHVM
> > > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Turner
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com <javascript:;>]
> > > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32
> > > To: dev
> > > Subject: xenserver 6.5
> > >
> > > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an idea
> of
> > > how much effort that is going to be?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daan
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > o: 303.746.7302
> > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
> >
>
--
Daan
Re: xenserver 6.5
Posted by Tim Mackey <tm...@gmail.com>.
I know that master had a bunch of cleanup work to make things work better
(commits were a month ago), but baring any significant issues, being able
to support a newer XenServer should be as simple as a database update. So
net of this master *today* should work fine with 6.5 (and the various
pre-release builds since beta.2).
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer resource class
> can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't think you need to
> make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version.
>
> If you do see some incompatibility with that version of XenServer, then
> someone would need to create a new resource class to handle the
> discrepancies.
>
> On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis <ad...@alsiconsulting.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with using
> 6.5
> > when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility problems,
> will
> > it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told that
> newer,
> > effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid hypervisor?
> > Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5 when it
> > comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using it? If
> so,
> > are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it require
> > rebuilding?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Turner [mailto:Stephen.Turner@citrix.com <javascript:;>]
> > Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;>
> > Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5
> >
> > I think it should be minimal, because although there are large internal
> > changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage datapath,
> > PVHVM
> > mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged.
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Turner
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com <javascript:;>]
> > Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32
> > To: dev
> > Subject: xenserver 6.5
> >
> > Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an idea of
> > how much effort that is going to be?
> >
> > --
> > Daan
> >
>
>
> --
> *Mike Tutkowski*
> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> o: 303.746.7302
> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
>
Re: xenserver 6.5
Posted by Mike Tutkowski <mi...@solidfire.com>.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, if a previous XenServer resource class
can handle the newer version of XenServer, then I don't think you need to
make any changes to CloudStack files to use that newer version.
If you do see some incompatibility with that version of XenServer, then
someone would need to create a new resource class to handle the
discrepancies.
On Monday, October 20, 2014, Adrian Lewis <ad...@alsiconsulting.co.uk>
wrote:
> Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with using 6.5
> when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility problems, will
> it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told that newer,
> effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid hypervisor?
> Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5 when it
> comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using it? If so,
> are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it require
> rebuilding?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Turner [mailto:Stephen.Turner@citrix.com <javascript:;>]
> Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <javascript:;>
> Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5
>
> I think it should be minimal, because although there are large internal
> changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage datapath,
> PVHVM
> mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged.
>
> --
> Stephen Turner
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com <javascript:;>]
> Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32
> To: dev
> Subject: xenserver 6.5
>
> Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an idea of
> how much effort that is going to be?
>
> --
> Daan
>
--
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
Re: xenserver 6.5
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Adrian, It should be a db insert. (hope i'm not missing anything)
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Adrian Lewis <ad...@alsiconsulting.co.uk>
wrote:
> Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with using 6.5
> when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility problems, will
> it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told that newer,
> effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid hypervisor?
> Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5 when it
> comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using it? If so,
> are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it require
> rebuilding?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Turner [mailto:Stephen.Turner@citrix.com]
> Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5
>
> I think it should be minimal, because although there are large internal
> changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage datapath,
> PVHVM
> mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged.
>
> --
> Stephen Turner
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
> Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32
> To: dev
> Subject: xenserver 6.5
>
> Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an idea of
> how much effort that is going to be?
>
> --
> Daan
>
--
Daan
RE: xenserver 6.5
Posted by Adrian Lewis <ad...@alsiconsulting.co.uk>.
Out of interest, on the assumption that there are no issues with using 6.5
when it's released and there are no backwards-compatibility problems, will
it then work with 4.4.1 or does CS need to be *explicitly* told that newer,
effectively unknown versions are 'acceptable' as a valid hypervisor?
Basically, If we deploy CS 4.4.1 and we like the look of XS 6.5 when it
comes out, will we need to make any changes to CS to start using it? If so,
are these simple edits to the contents of a file or would it require
rebuilding?
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Turner [mailto:Stephen.Turner@citrix.com]
Sent: 20 October 2014 15:28
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: xenserver 6.5
I think it should be minimal, because although there are large internal
changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage datapath, PVHVM
mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged.
--
Stephen Turner
-----Original Message-----
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32
To: dev
Subject: xenserver 6.5
Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an idea of
how much effort that is going to be?
--
Daan
RE: xenserver 6.5
Posted by Stephen Turner <St...@citrix.com>.
I think it should be minimal, because although there are large internal changes (e.g., 3.x kernel, 64-bit dom0, new Xen, new storage datapath, PVHVM mode for RHEL/CentOS 7), the interface is essentially unchanged.
--
Stephen Turner
-----Original Message-----
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
Sent: 20 October 2014 14:32
To: dev
Subject: xenserver 6.5
Does anybody (know of) work on supporting xenserver 6.5 or has an idea of how much effort that is going to be?
--
Daan