You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org> on 2017/05/09 05:31:21 UTC
[VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Hi All,
I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up for a vote:
Git Branch and Commit SH:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same
location):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
Vote will be open for 72 hours.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate
"(binding)" with their vote
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
~Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
Hi,
I went ahead and opened the following PR:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2096
Talk to you later!
Mike
On May 10, 2017, at 9:26 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@netapp.com>> wrote:
Hi,
I analyzed the problematic PR and fixed the issue this way:
https://github.com/mike-tutkowski/cloudstack/commit/c463057c82656a4d7564fc9205bb79517317c629
If a couple people could take a look at this code and see what you think, I can create a PR against the RC and we can make use of this code in the next RC for 4.10.
Thanks!
Mike
On 5/10/17, 2:34 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>> wrote:
OK, here’s the gist of the problem:
In StorageManagerImpl.cleanupStorage(boolean), the following line in 4.9
List<VolumeVO> vols = _volsDao.listVolumesToBeDestroyed(new Date(System.currentTimeMillis() - ((long) StorageCleanupDelay.value() << 10)));
was changed to the following in 4.10
// ROOT volumes will be destroyed as part of VM cleanup
List<VolumeVO> vols = _volsDao.listNonRootVolumesToBeDestroyed(new Date(System.currentTimeMillis() - ((long) StorageCleanupDelay.value() << 10)));
This leads to a problem (for both managed and traditional storage) in the following situation:
For example: Let’s say we have a system VM running on NFS primary storage. We then put this primary storage into maintenance mode, which creates the system VM (with the same name) on a different primary storage (we do not create a new row in the cloud.vm_instance table for this VM). While this VM works, the original root disk of the system VM remains on the original primary storage and is not destroyed by the code in StorageManagerImpl.cleanupStorage(boolean) in 4.10 because 4.10 (as shown above) only asks for non-root volumes to consider for deletion. In the 4.9 version of the code, the original root disk is cleaned up in StorageManagerImpl.cleanupStorage(boolean). The problem with 4.10 relying on a root disk always being deleted when the VM it belongs to is deleted is that in a situation like this that the system VM doesn’t get deleted at this point – it gets a new root disk that’s hosted by a different primary storage (so now it’s original root disk is stranded).
Here is the ticket and the PR where the code change went in:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9660
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1825
To me, this needs to be fixed before we release 4.10, so I am -1 on this RC.
My suggestion would be to basically revert PR 1825 and to make use of just bits and pieces of it.
For example, this part should be kept:
- volService.expungeVolumeAsync(volFactory.getVolume(vol.getId()));
+ VolumeInfo volumeInfo = volFactory.getVolume(vol.getId());
+ if (volumeInfo != null) {
+ volService.expungeVolumeAsync(volumeInfo);
+ } else {
+ s_logger.debug("Volume " + vol.getUuid() + " is already destroyed");
+ }
On 5/10/17, 8:17 AM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>> wrote:
I've been running regression tests against the release candidate.
So far, all tests but one have passed.
The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for managed storage in a particular situation.
As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.
I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.
I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to this thread.
On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>> wrote:
I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before creating
RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections, we
can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl<ma...@widodh.nl>)
wrote:
Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
<wi...@gmail.com>>:
Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
with basic
networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
noticeable when
you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
is not in 4.10.
However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
Wido
On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>>
wrote:
+0
I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
4.10 would
be a problem due to the VR performance.
A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
longer:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
slow.
Wido
Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
<ra...@apache.org>>:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
for a
vote:
Git Branch and Commit SH:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
same
location):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
Vote will be open for 72 hours.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
to
indicate
"(binding)" with their vote
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
~Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
Hi,
I analyzed the problematic PR and fixed the issue this way:
https://github.com/mike-tutkowski/cloudstack/commit/c463057c82656a4d7564fc9205bb79517317c629
If a couple people could take a look at this code and see what you think, I can create a PR against the RC and we can make use of this code in the next RC for 4.10.
Thanks!
Mike
On 5/10/17, 2:34 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com> wrote:
OK, here’s the gist of the problem:
In StorageManagerImpl.cleanupStorage(boolean), the following line in 4.9
List<VolumeVO> vols = _volsDao.listVolumesToBeDestroyed(new Date(System.currentTimeMillis() - ((long) StorageCleanupDelay.value() << 10)));
was changed to the following in 4.10
// ROOT volumes will be destroyed as part of VM cleanup
List<VolumeVO> vols = _volsDao.listNonRootVolumesToBeDestroyed(new Date(System.currentTimeMillis() - ((long) StorageCleanupDelay.value() << 10)));
This leads to a problem (for both managed and traditional storage) in the following situation:
For example: Let’s say we have a system VM running on NFS primary storage. We then put this primary storage into maintenance mode, which creates the system VM (with the same name) on a different primary storage (we do not create a new row in the cloud.vm_instance table for this VM). While this VM works, the original root disk of the system VM remains on the original primary storage and is not destroyed by the code in StorageManagerImpl.cleanupStorage(boolean) in 4.10 because 4.10 (as shown above) only asks for non-root volumes to consider for deletion. In the 4.9 version of the code, the original root disk is cleaned up in StorageManagerImpl.cleanupStorage(boolean). The problem with 4.10 relying on a root disk always being deleted when the VM it belongs to is deleted is that in a situation like this that the system VM doesn’t get deleted at this point – it gets a new root disk that’s hosted by a different primary storage (so now it’s original root disk is stranded).
Here is the ticket and the PR where the code change went in:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9660
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1825
To me, this needs to be fixed before we release 4.10, so I am -1 on this RC.
My suggestion would be to basically revert PR 1825 and to make use of just bits and pieces of it.
For example, this part should be kept:
- volService.expungeVolumeAsync(volFactory.getVolume(vol.getId()));
+ VolumeInfo volumeInfo = volFactory.getVolume(vol.getId());
+ if (volumeInfo != null) {
+ volService.expungeVolumeAsync(volumeInfo);
+ } else {
+ s_logger.debug("Volume " + vol.getUuid() + " is already destroyed");
+ }
On 5/10/17, 8:17 AM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com> wrote:
I've been running regression tests against the release candidate.
So far, all tests but one have passed.
The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for managed storage in a particular situation.
As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.
I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.
I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to this thread.
> On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before creating
> RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
>
> If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections, we
> can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
>
> ~ Rajani
>
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
>
> On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl)
> wrote:
>
> Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
> <wi...@gmail.com>:
>
> Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
> with basic
> networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
> noticeable when
> you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
>
> Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
> The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
>
> It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
>
> In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
>
> What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
> is not in 4.10.
>
> However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
>
> Wido
>
> On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
> wrote:
>
> +0
>
> I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
> 4.10 would
> be a problem due to the VR performance.
>
> A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
> longer:
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
>
> Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
> slow.
>
> Wido
>
> Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
> <ra...@apache.org>:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
> for a
>
> vote:
>
> Git Branch and Commit SH:
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
>
> fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
>
> Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
> Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
>
> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
> same
> location):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
>
> PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
> to
>
> indicate
>
> "(binding)" with their vote
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> ~Rajani
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
OK, here’s the gist of the problem:
In StorageManagerImpl.cleanupStorage(boolean), the following line in 4.9
List<VolumeVO> vols = _volsDao.listVolumesToBeDestroyed(new Date(System.currentTimeMillis() - ((long) StorageCleanupDelay.value() << 10)));
was changed to the following in 4.10
// ROOT volumes will be destroyed as part of VM cleanup
List<VolumeVO> vols = _volsDao.listNonRootVolumesToBeDestroyed(new Date(System.currentTimeMillis() - ((long) StorageCleanupDelay.value() << 10)));
This leads to a problem (for both managed and traditional storage) in the following situation:
For example: Let’s say we have a system VM running on NFS primary storage. We then put this primary storage into maintenance mode, which creates the system VM (with the same name) on a different primary storage (we do not create a new row in the cloud.vm_instance table for this VM). While this VM works, the original root disk of the system VM remains on the original primary storage and is not destroyed by the code in StorageManagerImpl.cleanupStorage(boolean) in 4.10 because 4.10 (as shown above) only asks for non-root volumes to consider for deletion. In the 4.9 version of the code, the original root disk is cleaned up in StorageManagerImpl.cleanupStorage(boolean). The problem with 4.10 relying on a root disk always being deleted when the VM it belongs to is deleted is that in a situation like this that the system VM doesn’t get deleted at this point – it gets a new root disk that’s hosted by a different primary storage (so now it’s original root disk is stranded).
Here is the ticket and the PR where the code change went in:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9660
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1825
To me, this needs to be fixed before we release 4.10, so I am -1 on this RC.
My suggestion would be to basically revert PR 1825 and to make use of just bits and pieces of it.
For example, this part should be kept:
- volService.expungeVolumeAsync(volFactory.getVolume(vol.getId()));
+ VolumeInfo volumeInfo = volFactory.getVolume(vol.getId());
+ if (volumeInfo != null) {
+ volService.expungeVolumeAsync(volumeInfo);
+ } else {
+ s_logger.debug("Volume " + vol.getUuid() + " is already destroyed");
+ }
On 5/10/17, 8:17 AM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com> wrote:
I've been running regression tests against the release candidate.
So far, all tests but one have passed.
The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for managed storage in a particular situation.
As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.
I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.
I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to this thread.
> On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before creating
> RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
>
> If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections, we
> can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
>
> ~ Rajani
>
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
>
> On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl)
> wrote:
>
> Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
> <wi...@gmail.com>:
>
> Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
> with basic
> networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
> noticeable when
> you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
>
> Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
> The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
>
> It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
>
> In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
>
> What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
> is not in 4.10.
>
> However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
>
> Wido
>
> On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
> wrote:
>
> +0
>
> I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
> 4.10 would
> be a problem due to the VR performance.
>
> A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
> longer:
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
>
> Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
> slow.
>
> Wido
>
> Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
> <ra...@apache.org>:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
> for a
>
> vote:
>
> Git Branch and Commit SH:
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
>
> fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
>
> Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
> Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
>
> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
> same
> location):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
>
> PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
> to
>
> indicate
>
> "(binding)" with their vote
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> ~Rajani
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
Re:Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by Haijiao <18...@163.com>.
HI, Rajani
I think these 4 are ready and good for merging into RC3.
CLOUDSTACK-9690: Scale CentOS7 VM fails with error #1849
CLOUDSTACK-9017 : VPC VR DHCP broken for multihomed guest VMs #2082
CLOUDSTACK-9824: Resource count for Primary storage is considered twice - while creating and while attaching the disk #1992
CLOUDSTACK-9112: Deploy VM failing frequently due to capacity calculation not synchron… #1180
在2017年05月11 12时40分, "Rajani Karuturi"<ra...@apache.org>写道:
Thanks for testing Mike.
RC3=RC2+PR#2089+Mike'sPR
Any other additions?
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
(Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com) wrote:
I've been running regression tests against the release candidate.
So far, all tests but one have passed.
The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It
looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this
thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for
managed storage in a particular situation.
As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.
I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.
I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to
this thread.
On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>
wrote:
I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before
creating
RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections,
we
can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl)
wrote:
Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
<wi...@gmail.com>:
Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
with basic
networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
noticeable when
you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
is not in 4.10.
However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
Wido
On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
wrote:
+0
I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
4.10 would
be a problem due to the VR performance.
A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
longer:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
slow.
Wido
Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
<ra...@apache.org>:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
for a
vote:
Git Branch and Commit SH:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
same
location):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
Vote will be open for 72 hours.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
to
indicate
"(binding)" with their vote
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
~Rajani
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by Jayapal Uradi <ja...@accelerite.com>.
Today I am working on this PR. Hopefully I will complete it.
Yesterday fixed test_01_isolate_network_FW_PF_default_routes_egress_true, test_01_isolate_network_FW_PF_default_routes_egress_false. Today working on RVR related tests.
Thanks,
Jayapal
On May 11, 2017, at 10:38 AM, Will Stevens <wi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Is 1866 ready? It looks like CI is failing on a lot of relevant network tests.
On May 11, 2017 12:48 AM, "Jayapal Uradi" <ja...@accelerite.com>> wrote:
Hi Rajani,
Also please include the PR#1866.
Thanks,
Jayapal
> On May 11, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> Thanks for testing Mike.
>
> RC3=RC2+PR#2089+Mike'sPR
>
> Any other additions?
>
> ~ Rajani
>
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
>
> On May 10, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
> (Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com<ma...@netapp.com>) wrote:
>
> I've been running regression tests against the release candidate.
>
> So far, all tests but one have passed.
>
> The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It
> looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this
> thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for
> managed storage in a particular situation.
>
> As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.
>
> I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.
>
> I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to
> this thread.
>
> On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>>
> wrote:
>
> I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before
> creating
> RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
>
> If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections,
> we
> can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
>
> ~ Rajani
>
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
>
> On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl<ma...@widodh.nl>)
> wrote:
>
> Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
> <wi...@gmail.com>>:
>
> Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
> with basic
> networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
> noticeable when
> you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
>
> Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
> The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
>
> It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
>
> In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
>
> What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
> is not in 4.10.
>
> However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
>
> Wido
>
> On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>>
> wrote:
>
> +0
>
> I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
> 4.10 would
> be a problem due to the VR performance.
>
> A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
> longer:
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
>
> Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
> slow.
>
> Wido
>
> Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
> <ra...@apache.org>>:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
> for a
>
> vote:
>
> Git Branch and Commit SH:
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
>
> fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
>
> Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
> Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
>
> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
> same
> location):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
>
> PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
> to
>
> indicate
>
> "(binding)" with their vote
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> ~Rajani
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
DISCLAIMER
==========
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, print, distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any liability for virus infected mails.
DISCLAIMER
==========
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, print, distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any liability for virus infected mails.
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by Will Stevens <wi...@gmail.com>.
Is 1866 ready? It looks like CI is failing on a lot of relevant network
tests.
On May 11, 2017 12:48 AM, "Jayapal Uradi" <ja...@accelerite.com>
wrote:
Hi Rajani,
Also please include the PR#1866.
Thanks,
Jayapal
> On May 11, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for testing Mike.
>
> RC3=RC2+PR#2089+Mike'sPR
>
> Any other additions?
>
> ~ Rajani
>
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
>
> On May 10, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
> (Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com) wrote:
>
> I've been running regression tests against the release candidate.
>
> So far, all tests but one have passed.
>
> The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It
> looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this
> thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for
> managed storage in a particular situation.
>
> As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.
>
> I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.
>
> I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to
> this thread.
>
> On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before
> creating
> RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
>
> If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections,
> we
> can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
>
> ~ Rajani
>
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
>
> On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl)
> wrote:
>
> Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
> <wi...@gmail.com>:
>
> Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
> with basic
> networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
> noticeable when
> you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
>
> Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
> The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
>
> It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
>
> In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
>
> What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
> is not in 4.10.
>
> However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
>
> Wido
>
> On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
> wrote:
>
> +0
>
> I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
> 4.10 would
> be a problem due to the VR performance.
>
> A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
> longer:
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
>
> Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
> slow.
>
> Wido
>
> Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
> <ra...@apache.org>:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
> for a
>
> vote:
>
> Git Branch and Commit SH:
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
>
> fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
>
> Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
> Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
>
> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
> same
> location):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
>
> PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
> to
>
> indicate
>
> "(binding)" with their vote
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> ~Rajani
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
DISCLAIMER
==========
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is
the property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended
only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain,
copy, print, distribute or use this message. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of
this message. Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any
liability for virus infected mails.
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by Jayapal Uradi <ja...@accelerite.com>.
Hi Rajani,
Also please include the PR#1866.
Thanks,
Jayapal
> On May 11, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for testing Mike.
>
> RC3=RC2+PR#2089+Mike'sPR
>
> Any other additions?
>
> ~ Rajani
>
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
>
> On May 10, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
> (Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com) wrote:
>
> I've been running regression tests against the release candidate.
>
> So far, all tests but one have passed.
>
> The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It
> looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this
> thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for
> managed storage in a particular situation.
>
> As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.
>
> I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.
>
> I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to
> this thread.
>
> On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before
> creating
> RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
>
> If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections,
> we
> can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
>
> ~ Rajani
>
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
>
> On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl)
> wrote:
>
> Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
> <wi...@gmail.com>:
>
> Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
> with basic
> networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
> noticeable when
> you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
>
> Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
> The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
>
> It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
>
> In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
>
> What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
> is not in 4.10.
>
> However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
>
> Wido
>
> On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
> wrote:
>
> +0
>
> I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
> 4.10 would
> be a problem due to the VR performance.
>
> A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
> longer:
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
>
> Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
> slow.
>
> Wido
>
> Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
> <ra...@apache.org>:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
> for a
>
> vote:
>
> Git Branch and Commit SH:
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
>
> fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
>
> Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
> Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
>
> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
> same
> location):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
>
> PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
> to
>
> indicate
>
> "(binding)" with their vote
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> ~Rajani
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
DISCLAIMER
==========
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, print, distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not accept any liability for virus infected mails.
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Hi Rajani,
While they are not blockers, but please consider merging these bugfix PRs:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2075
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2070
Thanks.
Regards.
________________________________
From: Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>
Sent: 11 May 2017 10:10:35
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Will Stevens; Wido den Hollander
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Thanks for testing Mike.
RC3=RC2+PR#2089+Mike'sPR
Any other additions?
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
(Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com) wrote:
I've been running regression tests against the release candidate.
So far, all tests but one have passed.
The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It
looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this
thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for
managed storage in a particular situation.
As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.
I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.
I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to
this thread.
On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>
wrote:
I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before
creating
RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections,
we
can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl)
wrote:
Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
<wi...@gmail.com>:
Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
with basic
networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
noticeable when
you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
is not in 4.10.
However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
Wido
On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
wrote:
+0
I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
4.10 would
be a problem due to the VR performance.
A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
longer:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
slow.
Wido
Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
<ra...@apache.org>:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
for a
vote:
Git Branch and Commit SH:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
same
location):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
Vote will be open for 72 hours.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
to
indicate
"(binding)" with their vote
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
~Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
Will look into it asap. Just got back from travel from US.
Wido
> Op 24 mei 2017 om 12:14 heeft Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org> het volgende geschreven:
>
> PR 2089 - vRouters fixes & performance improvement is the only blocker for RC3. If we can resolve it quickly, I will create RC3.
>
> Thanks,
> ~ Rajani
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
>
>> On May 18, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Rohit Yadav (rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com) wrote:
>
>> Thanks Rajani,
>>
>>
>> I'll try to help over those pending PRs.
>>
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Rajani K <rj...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: 18 May 2017 15:50:56
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: Will Stevens; Wido den Hollander
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
>>
>> These are the pending PRs for RC3:
>> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/milestone/2
>>
>> Blockers are tagged as such.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> ~ Rajani
>>
>> On May 18, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Rohit Yadav
>> (rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com) wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Other than Mike's blocker fix #2098, do we have any other
>> outstanding issues blocking the 4.10.0.0 release?
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@netapp.com>
>> Sent: 12 May 2017 01:53:44
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: Will Stevens; Wido den Hollander
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
>>
>> Hi Rajani,
>>
>> I opened the following PR (against master) to fix the blocker
>> CLOUDSTACK-9917:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2098
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Mike
>>
>> On 5/10/17, 10:40 PM, "Rajani Karuturi" <ra...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for testing Mike.
>>
>> RC3=RC2+PR#2089+Mike'sPR
>>
>> Any other additions?
>>
>> ~ Rajani
>>
>> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
>>
>> On May 10, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
>> (Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com) wrote:
>>
>> I've been running regression tests against the release
>> candidate.
>>
>> So far, all tests but one have passed.
>>
>> The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It
>> looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this
>> thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for
>> managed storage in a particular situation.
>>
>> As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.
>>
>> I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.
>>
>> I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to
>> this thread.
>>
>> On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before
>> creating
>> RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
>>
>> If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections,
>> we
>> can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
>>
>> ~ Rajani
>>
>> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
>>
>> On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl)
>> wrote:
>>
>> Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
>> <wi...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
>> with basic
>> networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
>> noticeable when
>> you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
>>
>> Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
>> The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
>>
>> It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
>>
>> In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
>>
>> What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
>> is not in 4.10.
>>
>> However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
>>
>> Wido
>>
>> On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>> +0
>>
>> I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
>> 4.10 would
>> be a problem due to the VR performance.
>>
>> A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
>> longer:
>> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
>>
>> Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
>> slow.
>>
>> Wido
>>
>> Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
>> <ra...@apache.org>:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
>> for a
>>
>> vote:
>>
>> Git Branch and Commit SH:
>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
>>
>> fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
>>
>> Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
>> Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
>>
>> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
>> same
>> location):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
>>
>> PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>
>> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>
>> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
>> to
>>
>> indicate
>>
>> "(binding)" with their vote
>>
>> [ ] +1 approve
>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>> ~Rajani
>> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
>>
>> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> ( http://www.shapeblue.com )
>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
>> @shapeblue
>>
>> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
>> www.shapeblue.com
>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
>> @shapeblue
>>
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>.
PR 2089 - vRouters fixes & performance improvement is the only
blocker for RC3. If we can resolve it quickly, I will create RC3.
Thanks,
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 18, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Rohit Yadav
(rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com) wrote:
Thanks Rajani,
I'll try to help over those pending PRs.
Regards.
________________________________
From: Rajani K <rj...@gmail.com>
Sent: 18 May 2017 15:50:56
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Will Stevens; Wido den Hollander
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
These are the pending PRs for RC3:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/milestone/2
Blockers are tagged as such.
Thanks,
~ Rajani
On May 18, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Rohit Yadav
(rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com) wrote:
All,
Other than Mike's blocker fix #2098, do we have any other
outstanding issues blocking the 4.10.0.0 release?
Regards.
________________________________
From: Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@netapp.com>
Sent: 12 May 2017 01:53:44
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Will Stevens; Wido den Hollander
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Hi Rajani,
I opened the following PR (against master) to fix the blocker
CLOUDSTACK-9917:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2098
Thanks!
Mike
On 5/10/17, 10:40 PM, "Rajani Karuturi" <ra...@apache.org>
wrote:
Thanks for testing Mike.
RC3=RC2+PR#2089+Mike'sPR
Any other additions?
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
(Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com) wrote:
I've been running regression tests against the release
candidate.
So far, all tests but one have passed.
The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It
looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this
thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for
managed storage in a particular situation.
As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.
I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.
I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to
this thread.
On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>
wrote:
I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before
creating
RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections,
we
can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl)
wrote:
Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
<wi...@gmail.com>:
Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
with basic
networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
noticeable when
you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
is not in 4.10.
However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
Wido
On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
wrote:
+0
I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
4.10 would
be a problem due to the VR performance.
A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
longer:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
slow.
Wido
Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
<ra...@apache.org>:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
for a
vote:
Git Branch and Commit SH:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
same
location):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
Vote will be open for 72 hours.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
to
indicate
"(binding)" with their vote
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
~Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com
( http://www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com )>
( http://www.shapeblue.com )
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com )
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Thanks Rajani,
I'll try to help over those pending PRs.
Regards.
________________________________
From: Rajani K <rj...@gmail.com>
Sent: 18 May 2017 15:50:56
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Will Stevens; Wido den Hollander
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
These are the pending PRs for RC3:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/milestone/2
Blockers are tagged as such.
Thanks,
~ Rajani
On May 18, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Rohit Yadav
(rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com) wrote:
All,
Other than Mike's blocker fix #2098, do we have any other
outstanding issues blocking the 4.10.0.0 release?
Regards.
________________________________
From: Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@netapp.com>
Sent: 12 May 2017 01:53:44
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Will Stevens; Wido den Hollander
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Hi Rajani,
I opened the following PR (against master) to fix the blocker
CLOUDSTACK-9917:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2098
Thanks!
Mike
On 5/10/17, 10:40 PM, "Rajani Karuturi" <ra...@apache.org>
wrote:
Thanks for testing Mike.
RC3=RC2+PR#2089+Mike'sPR
Any other additions?
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
(Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com) wrote:
I've been running regression tests against the release
candidate.
So far, all tests but one have passed.
The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It
looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this
thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for
managed storage in a particular situation.
As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.
I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.
I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to
this thread.
On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>
wrote:
I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before
creating
RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections,
we
can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl)
wrote:
Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
<wi...@gmail.com>:
Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
with basic
networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
noticeable when
you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
is not in 4.10.
However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
Wido
On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
wrote:
+0
I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
4.10 would
be a problem due to the VR performance.
A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
longer:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
slow.
Wido
Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
<ra...@apache.org>:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
for a
vote:
Git Branch and Commit SH:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
same
location):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
Vote will be open for 72 hours.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
to
indicate
"(binding)" with their vote
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
~Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> ( http://www.shapeblue.com )
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by Rajani K <rj...@gmail.com>.
These are the pending PRs for RC3:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/milestone/2
Blockers are tagged as such.
Thanks,
~ Rajani
On May 18, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Rohit Yadav
(rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com) wrote:
All,
Other than Mike's blocker fix #2098, do we have any other
outstanding issues blocking the 4.10.0.0 release?
Regards.
________________________________
From: Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@netapp.com>
Sent: 12 May 2017 01:53:44
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Will Stevens; Wido den Hollander
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Hi Rajani,
I opened the following PR (against master) to fix the blocker
CLOUDSTACK-9917:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2098
Thanks!
Mike
On 5/10/17, 10:40 PM, "Rajani Karuturi" <ra...@apache.org>
wrote:
Thanks for testing Mike.
RC3=RC2+PR#2089+Mike'sPR
Any other additions?
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
(Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com) wrote:
I've been running regression tests against the release
candidate.
So far, all tests but one have passed.
The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It
looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this
thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for
managed storage in a particular situation.
As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.
I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.
I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to
this thread.
On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>
wrote:
I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before
creating
RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections,
we
can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl)
wrote:
Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
<wi...@gmail.com>:
Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
with basic
networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
noticeable when
you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
is not in 4.10.
However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
Wido
On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
wrote:
+0
I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
4.10 would
be a problem due to the VR performance.
A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
longer:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
slow.
Wido
Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
<ra...@apache.org>:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
for a
vote:
Git Branch and Commit SH:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
same
location):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
Vote will be open for 72 hours.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
to
indicate
"(binding)" with their vote
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
~Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com )
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
All,
Other than Mike's blocker fix #2098, do we have any other outstanding issues blocking the 4.10.0.0 release?
Regards.
________________________________
From: Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@netapp.com>
Sent: 12 May 2017 01:53:44
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Will Stevens; Wido den Hollander
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Hi Rajani,
I opened the following PR (against master) to fix the blocker CLOUDSTACK-9917:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2098
Thanks!
Mike
On 5/10/17, 10:40 PM, "Rajani Karuturi" <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
Thanks for testing Mike.
RC3=RC2+PR#2089+Mike'sPR
Any other additions?
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
(Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com) wrote:
I've been running regression tests against the release candidate.
So far, all tests but one have passed.
The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It
looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this
thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for
managed storage in a particular situation.
As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.
I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.
I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to
this thread.
On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>
wrote:
I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before
creating
RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections,
we
can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl)
wrote:
Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
<wi...@gmail.com>:
Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
with basic
networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
noticeable when
you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
is not in 4.10.
However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
Wido
On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
wrote:
+0
I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
4.10 would
be a problem due to the VR performance.
A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
longer:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
slow.
Wido
Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
<ra...@apache.org>:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
for a
vote:
Git Branch and Commit SH:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
same
location):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
Vote will be open for 72 hours.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
to
indicate
"(binding)" with their vote
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
~Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
Hi Rajani,
I opened the following PR (against master) to fix the blocker CLOUDSTACK-9917:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2098
Thanks!
Mike
On 5/10/17, 10:40 PM, "Rajani Karuturi" <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
Thanks for testing Mike.
RC3=RC2+PR#2089+Mike'sPR
Any other additions?
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
(Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com) wrote:
I've been running regression tests against the release candidate.
So far, all tests but one have passed.
The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It
looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this
thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for
managed storage in a particular situation.
As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.
I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.
I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to
this thread.
On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>
wrote:
I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before
creating
RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections,
we
can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl)
wrote:
Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
<wi...@gmail.com>:
Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
with basic
networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
noticeable when
you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
is not in 4.10.
However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
Wido
On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
wrote:
+0
I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
4.10 would
be a problem due to the VR performance.
A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
longer:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
slow.
Wido
Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
<ra...@apache.org>:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
for a
vote:
Git Branch and Commit SH:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
same
location):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
Vote will be open for 72 hours.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
to
indicate
"(binding)" with their vote
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
~Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>.
Thanks for testing Mike.
RC3=RC2+PR#2089+Mike'sPR
Any other additions?
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
(Mike.Tutkowski@netapp.com) wrote:
I've been running regression tests against the release candidate.
So far, all tests but one have passed.
The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It
looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this
thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for
managed storage in a particular situation.
As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.
I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.
I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to
this thread.
On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>
wrote:
I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before
creating
RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections,
we
can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl)
wrote:
Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
<wi...@gmail.com>:
Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
with basic
networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
noticeable when
you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
is not in 4.10.
However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
Wido
On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
wrote:
+0
I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
4.10 would
be a problem due to the VR performance.
A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
longer:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
slow.
Wido
Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
<ra...@apache.org>:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
for a
vote:
Git Branch and Commit SH:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
same
location):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
Vote will be open for 72 hours.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
to
indicate
"(binding)" with their vote
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
~Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>.
I've been running regression tests against the release candidate.
So far, all tests but one have passed.
The failing test is related to the storage cleanup thread. It looks like some code was changed in 4.10 with regards to this thread and that change is causing a problem around cleanup for managed storage in a particular situation.
As a result of this, I was going to vote -1.
I'm guessing the fix will not be complicated, but is important.
I don't yet have the fix, however. Once I do, I can reply to this thread.
> On May 10, 2017, at 5:47 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before creating
> RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
>
> If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections, we
> can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
>
> ~ Rajani
>
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
>
> On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl)
> wrote:
>
> Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
> <wi...@gmail.com>:
>
> Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
> with basic
> networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
> noticeable when
> you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
>
> Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
> The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
>
> It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
>
> In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
>
> What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
> is not in 4.10.
>
> However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
>
> Wido
>
> On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
> wrote:
>
> +0
>
> I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
> 4.10 would
> be a problem due to the VR performance.
>
> A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
> longer:
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
>
> Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
> slow.
>
> Wido
>
> Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
> <ra...@apache.org>:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
> for a
>
> vote:
>
> Git Branch and Commit SH:
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
>
> fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
>
> Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
> Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
>
> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
> same
> location):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
>
> PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
> to
>
> indicate
>
> "(binding)" with their vote
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> ~Rajani
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>.
I agree to your concerns Wido. I did check the PR before creating
RC2. There were some outstanding comments on it.
If no one has started testing RC2 and there are no objections, we
can cancel this vote, quickly merge the PR and create RC3.
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Wido den Hollander (wido@widodh.nl)
wrote:
Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens
<wi...@gmail.com>:
Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only
with basic
networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes
noticeable when
you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced.
The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but
is not in 4.10.
However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
Wido
On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl>
wrote:
+0
I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us
4.10 would
be a problem due to the VR performance.
A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any
longer:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly
slow.
Wido
Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi
<ra...@apache.org>:
Hi All,
I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up
for a
vote:
Git Branch and Commit SH:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
same
location):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
Vote will be open for 72 hours.
For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure
to
indicate
"(binding)" with their vote
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
~Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
> Op 10 mei 2017 om 0:33 schreef Will Stevens <wi...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only with basic
> networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes noticeable when
> you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
Well, the provisioning is the same between Basic and Advanced. The VR is utterly slow in doing that.
It happens when you have a lot of VMs in those networks.
In our case we have a couple of thousands VMs.
What I'd like to prevent is that this is merged into 4.9.3, but is not in 4.10.
However, I don't want to delay 4.10 any longer.
Wido
>
> On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>
> > +0
> >
> > I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us 4.10 would
> > be a problem due to the VR performance.
> >
> > A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any longer:
> > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
> >
> > Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly slow.
> >
> > Wido
> >
> > > Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up for a
> > vote:
> > >
> > > Git Branch and Commit SH:
> > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
> > fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
> > > Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
> > > Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
> > >
> > > Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same
> > > location):
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
> > >
> > > PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
> > >
> > > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > >
> > > For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
> > indicate
> > > "(binding)" with their vote
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 approve
> > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > >
> > > ~Rajani
> > > http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
> >
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by Will Stevens <wi...@gmail.com>.
Just to clarify. Wido, the issue you are experiencing is only with basic
networks and also exists in 4.9 right? The issue becomes noticeable when
you have a lot of networks. Is that a fair statement?
On May 9, 2017 5:39 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> +0
>
> I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us 4.10 would
> be a problem due to the VR performance.
>
> A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any longer:
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
>
> Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly slow.
>
> Wido
>
> > Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>:
> >
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up for a
> vote:
> >
> > Git Branch and Commit SH:
> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=
> fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
> > Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
> > Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
> >
> > Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same
> > location):
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
> >
> > PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
> >
> > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
> >
> > For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
> indicate
> > "(binding)" with their vote
> >
> > [ ] +1 approve
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >
> > ~Rajani
> > http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 - RC2
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
+0
I don't want to VOTE -1 due to a bug we are facing, but for us 4.10 would be a problem due to the VR performance.
A PR is open for this, but I also don't want to delay 4.10 any longer: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2089
Technically the VR works, it is just that deployment is utterly slow.
Wido
> Op 9 mei 2017 om 7:31 schreef Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've created a 4.10.0.0 release, with the following artifacts up for a vote:
>
> Git Branch and Commit SH:
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
> Commit:fadc80d50f9e95012c9ff3644b60b600c6f65204
> Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170509T1030
>
> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same
> location):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/
>
> PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>
> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate
> "(binding)" with their vote
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> ~Rajani
> http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/