You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Chandan Purushothama <Ch...@citrix.com> on 2013/02/26 20:39:13 UTC
What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Hello,
May I know whether we have a set of ASF 4.1 System VM Templates for all supported hypervisors. If Yes, then May I know the locations of the System VM Templates that I can download to work with the features offered in ASF 4.1 code. Kindly let me know,
Thank you,
Chandan.
RE: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Will Chan <wi...@citrix.com>.
Rohit,
How much work is left to incoporate the system vm builder?
Will
________________________________________
From: Will Chan [will.chan@citrix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:14 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:55 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
>
>
> The problem right now, is that IPv6 requires the new system vm (I think),
> but we have not fully tested the new system VM build process.
>
Ok, I'm a bit confused. Currently, it looks like we have 3 options?
1. Use the current 4.0 template, but that means we remove ipv6 support for 4.1 ACS.
2. Potentially delay 4.1 so we can incorporate the new system VM build process.
3. Figure out a way to generate the 4.1 template using the old way of generating the current 4.0 template. I assume this option is an absolute no-go.
QA is currently blocked on what to test and they cannot possibly have the time to test 4.1 with a 4.0 template and 4.1 template.
Will
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:14:20PM -0800, Will Chan wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:55 PM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
> >
> >
> > The problem right now, is that IPv6 requires the new system vm (I think),
> > but we have not fully tested the new system VM build process.
> >
>
> Ok, I'm a bit confused. Currently, it looks like we have 3 options?
>
> 1. Use the current 4.0 template, but that means we remove ipv6 support for 4.1 ACS.
This one is possible, and I wouldn't argue against it. But I think
option 3 is more interesting.
> 2. Potentially delay 4.1 so we can incorporate the new system VM build process.
I'm -1 to this. I don't think we should delay for this, as the new
build process is basically a "new feature" (stretching the definition of
feature to include major changes).
> 3. Figure out a way to generate the 4.1 template using the old way of generating the current 4.0 template. I assume this option is an absolute no-go.
Why? Honestly, we don't actually "ship" the system VMs. The project
still relies on Citrix to host them from the orig submission timeframe.
Could we have someone add ipv6 to them and post an updated version?
We've update our DB init scripts to point to the new location.
>
> QA is currently blocked on what to test and they cannot possibly have the time to test 4.1 with a 4.0 template and 4.1 template.
>
> Will
>
RE: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Will Chan <wi...@citrix.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:55 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
>
>
> The problem right now, is that IPv6 requires the new system vm (I think),
> but we have not fully tested the new system VM build process.
>
Ok, I'm a bit confused. Currently, it looks like we have 3 options?
1. Use the current 4.0 template, but that means we remove ipv6 support for 4.1 ACS.
2. Potentially delay 4.1 so we can incorporate the new system VM build process.
3. Figure out a way to generate the 4.1 template using the old way of generating the current 4.0 template. I assume this option is an absolute no-go.
QA is currently blocked on what to test and they cannot possibly have the time to test 4.1 with a 4.0 template and 4.1 template.
Will
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>.
As I said, I thought we would built new template for 4.1, but seems
it's not the case now, since the build systemvm template bug has been
moved to 4.2
So if we want to go with old template, we would lost the support for IPv6.
I don't know if it's what we what.
I would prefer to get template working, but I am not sure if community
would agree.
--Sheng
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti
<su...@citrix.com> wrote:
> So what is the resolution?? Need to fix template for 4.1 if we enable IPV6.
> Sheng - can you review and take action on this??
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:15 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
>
> When I first report the bug
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>
> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>
> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of that.
>
> --Sheng
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama wrote:
>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system VM Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>>
>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now are
>> the same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix pre-ASF).
RE: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>.
So what is the resolution?? Need to fix template for 4.1 if we enable IPV6.
Sheng - can you review and take action on this??
-----Original Message-----
From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:15 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
When I first report the bug
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of that.
--Sheng
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama wrote:
>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system VM Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>
> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now are
> the same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix pre-ASF).
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> <Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted alone,
>>>I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole 4.1
>>>release, to avoid confusion.
>>
>> As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion. People
>> are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since it is
>> considered experimental.
>> I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this stage
>> of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go with the
>> 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks ago, I'd say,
>> 'yeah, probably OK'.
>
> I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would
> need a template. I stated so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I
> opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1. Thanks to Rohit, we
> started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine.
>
> But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the
I meant, 4.2
--Sheng
> issue raised by QA at last minute.
>
> I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in
> 4.1. Seems nobody cares.
>>
>>>
>>>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm template
>>>for one release would be tricky I think.
>>
>> Yes, but it is experimental.
>>
>>>
>>>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained
>>>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside
>>>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, tested
>>>enough for default template.
>>
>> These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we could
>> use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the apt-get unless
>> some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For example:
>> - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or
>> - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created.
>
> I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or confident.
>
> I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things.
>
> According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's
> right that people not quite interested in ipv6.
>
> Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable
> with updated template.
>
> --Sheng
>
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785
> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387
> [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus=15159
>>
>>>
>>>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade
>>>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't
>>>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it again,
>>>Kelven should able to help with it.
>>>
>>>--Sheng
>>>
>>>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
>>><ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>>>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6
>>>>> feature is required in which case:
>>>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing
>>>>> with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
>>>>> B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is
>>>>>created) to
>>>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
>>>>
>>>> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be
>>>> considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if someone wants
>>>> to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little more work
>>>> to get the correct system VM.
>>>>
>>>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
>>>>
>>>> Other thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>>>> >> When I first report the bug
>>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of
>>>>> >>that.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
>>>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I
>>>>> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to
>>>>> >4.2
>>>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in
>>>>> >4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an
>>>>> >automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
>>>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
>>>>> >appliance/template really works [2]
>>>>> >
>>>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would
>>>>> >try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I
>>>>> >really want to see your feature go in 4.1
>>>>> >Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
>>>>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used
>>>>> >in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could
>>>>> >still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the
>>>>> >release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Regards.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> --Sheng
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
>>>>> >> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
>>>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system
>>>>>VM
>>>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/
>>>>>>>>>las
>>>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to
>>>>> >>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now
>>>>>are the
>>>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix
>>>>>pre-ASF).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>.
It looks like we can start the system vm, immediately write cmdline to
the vm's socket, and then we can dump it out of the character device
in the system vm (literally just cat the char dev) in
cloud-early-config where it would normally mount the patch disk. After
that, I think we may want to use our own daemon listening on the
character device, rather than qemu-guest-agent, because it doesn't
seem like qemu-guest-agent allows us to do much besides read/write
files and a few system level things like freezing filesystems. If
anyone has more info that I'm missing on that please speak up. I'm
assuming we'd want to have something we can communicate with to launch
the various system vm scripts. Plus we could distribute it in with the
scripts.
For the time being though, we can leverage the socket to push
cmdline/authorized keys, and skip any special changes to how scripts
are called or having to install qemu-guest-agent.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
> Marcus, let me know I can install qemu-guest-agent during
> postinstallation phase of the systemvmtemplate, and in
> patches/systemvm you can configure cloud-early-config or a script
> which runs this service? During startup of a systemvm template,
> systemvm.iso is used to patch this template to create one of ssvm,
> cpvm or rvm.
>
> Regards.
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have a request that if we provide a system vm going forward that it
>> have virtio_console support from early on, as well as qemu-ga
>> (qemu-guest-agent) service started before cloud-early-config, so we
>> can use it to control the system vms on KVM.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti
>> <su...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Just want to summarize what QA is doing for 4.1 validation and 4.2 so we are all on the same page.
>>>
>>> 4.1
>>> * we will use 4.0 template for IPV4 testing ( all QA uses this one) - (Even for this VMWare template is broken [1] and that is a different topic)
>>> *Sangeetha who is testing IPV6 or any others who are interested can use template provided by Sheng.
>>>
>>> 4.2 ( Master)
>>> * Continue to use older templates (4.0) temporarily till Rohit makes the template process streamlined for all HVs
>>> * Reason is being that blockers are being logged against new procedure done by Rohit [2]. It need to be tested and all templates ( xen/vmware/kvm) need to completed.
>>> * once he gives a go ahead all QA will consume that.
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1252
>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1462
>>>
>>> Hope this approach is fine for everyone.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> /Sudha
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:13 PM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:47:25AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
>>>> <Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted
>>>> >>alone, I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole
>>>> >>4.1 release, to avoid confusion.
>>>> >
>>>> > As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion.
>>>> > People are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since
>>>> > it is considered experimental.
>>>> > I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this
>>>> > stage of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go
>>>> > with the 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks
>>>> > ago, I'd say, 'yeah, probably OK'.
>>>>
>>>> I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would
>>>> need a template. I stated so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I
>>>> opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1. Thanks to Rohit, we
>>>> started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine.
>>>>
>>>> But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the
>>>> issue raised by QA at last minute.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in
>>>> 4.1. Seems nobody cares.
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm
>>>> >>template for one release would be tricky I think.
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes, but it is experimental.
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained
>>>> >>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside
>>>> >>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before,
>>>> >>tested enough for default template.
>>>> >
>>>> > These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we
>>>> > could use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the
>>>> > apt-get unless some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For example:
>>>> > - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or
>>>> > - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or confident.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things.
>>>>
>>>> According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's
>>>> right that people not quite interested in ipv6.
>>>
>>> To be clear, I personally am *very* interested in getting IPv6 support.
>>> I think what we are talking about is the fact that this is experimental for 4.1 (as previously agreed).
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable
>>>> with updated template.
>>>
>>> +1 to that approach.
>>>
>>> And another +1 to the implied implementation of IPv6, plus a new template, plus a new template build process, plus the UI, plus lots of testing... to make IPv6 support a full feature for 4.2.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Sheng
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785
>>>> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387
>>>> [3]
>>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus
>>>> =15159
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade
>>>> >>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't
>>>> >>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it
>>>> >>again, Kelven should able to help with it.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>--Sheng
>>>> >>
>>>> >>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
>>>> >><ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>>>> >>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless
>>>> >>>>the ipv6 feature is required in which case:
>>>> >>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been
>>>> >>>>testing with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
>>>> >>>>B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is
>>>> >>>>created) to
>>>> >>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would
>>>> >>> be considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if
>>>> >>> someone wants to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do
>>>> >>> a little more work to get the correct system VM.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Other thoughts?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>> >> When I first report the bug
>>>> >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>>> >>>> >>
>>>> >>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>>>> >>>> >>
>>>> >>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't
>>>> >>>> >>aware of that.
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
>>>> >>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since
>>>> >>>> >I started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the
>>>> >>>> >version to
>>>> >>>> >4.2
>>>> >>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make
>>>> >>>> >it in 4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and
>>>> >>>> >we've an automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
>>>> >>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
>>>> >>>> >appliance/template really works [2]
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I
>>>> >>>> >would try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least
>>>> >>>> >before 28/2, I really want to see your feature go in 4.1 Since,
>>>> >>>> >4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
>>>> >>>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be
>>>> >>>> >used in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware)
>>>> >>>> >and we could still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few
>>>> >>>> >more weeks before the release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >Regards.
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>>> >>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >>
>>>> >>>> >> --Sheng
>>>> >>>> >>
>>>> >>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
>>>> >>>> >> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan
>>>> >>>> >>> Purushothama
>>>> >>>>wrote:
>>>> >>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
>>>> >>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The
>>>> >>>> >>>>system
>>>> >>>>VM
>>>> >>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-m
>>>> >>>>>>>>aster/
>>>> >>>>>>>>las
>>>> >>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am
>>>> >>>> >>>>referring to the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>>>> >>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use
>>>> >>>> >>> now
>>>> >>>>are the
>>>> >>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix
>>>> >>>>pre-ASF).
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org>.
Marcus, let me know I can install qemu-guest-agent during
postinstallation phase of the systemvmtemplate, and in
patches/systemvm you can configure cloud-early-config or a script
which runs this service? During startup of a systemvm template,
systemvm.iso is used to patch this template to create one of ssvm,
cpvm or rvm.
Regards.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a request that if we provide a system vm going forward that it
> have virtio_console support from early on, as well as qemu-ga
> (qemu-guest-agent) service started before cloud-early-config, so we
> can use it to control the system vms on KVM.
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti
> <su...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Just want to summarize what QA is doing for 4.1 validation and 4.2 so we are all on the same page.
>>
>> 4.1
>> * we will use 4.0 template for IPV4 testing ( all QA uses this one) - (Even for this VMWare template is broken [1] and that is a different topic)
>> *Sangeetha who is testing IPV6 or any others who are interested can use template provided by Sheng.
>>
>> 4.2 ( Master)
>> * Continue to use older templates (4.0) temporarily till Rohit makes the template process streamlined for all HVs
>> * Reason is being that blockers are being logged against new procedure done by Rohit [2]. It need to be tested and all templates ( xen/vmware/kvm) need to completed.
>> * once he gives a go ahead all QA will consume that.
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1252
>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1462
>>
>> Hope this approach is fine for everyone.
>>
>> Thanks
>> /Sudha
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:13 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:47:25AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
>>> <Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted
>>> >>alone, I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole
>>> >>4.1 release, to avoid confusion.
>>> >
>>> > As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion.
>>> > People are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since
>>> > it is considered experimental.
>>> > I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this
>>> > stage of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go
>>> > with the 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks
>>> > ago, I'd say, 'yeah, probably OK'.
>>>
>>> I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would
>>> need a template. I stated so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I
>>> opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1. Thanks to Rohit, we
>>> started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine.
>>>
>>> But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the
>>> issue raised by QA at last minute.
>>>
>>> I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in
>>> 4.1. Seems nobody cares.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm
>>> >>template for one release would be tricky I think.
>>> >
>>> > Yes, but it is experimental.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained
>>> >>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside
>>> >>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before,
>>> >>tested enough for default template.
>>> >
>>> > These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we
>>> > could use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the
>>> > apt-get unless some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For example:
>>> > - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or
>>> > - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created.
>>>
>>> I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or confident.
>>>
>>> I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things.
>>>
>>> According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's
>>> right that people not quite interested in ipv6.
>>
>> To be clear, I personally am *very* interested in getting IPv6 support.
>> I think what we are talking about is the fact that this is experimental for 4.1 (as previously agreed).
>>
>>>
>>> Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable
>>> with updated template.
>>
>> +1 to that approach.
>>
>> And another +1 to the implied implementation of IPv6, plus a new template, plus a new template build process, plus the UI, plus lots of testing... to make IPv6 support a full feature for 4.2.
>>
>>>
>>> --Sheng
>>>
>>> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785
>>> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387
>>> [3]
>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus
>>> =15159
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade
>>> >>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't
>>> >>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it
>>> >>again, Kelven should able to help with it.
>>> >>
>>> >>--Sheng
>>> >>
>>> >>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
>>> >><ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>>> >>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless
>>> >>>>the ipv6 feature is required in which case:
>>> >>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been
>>> >>>>testing with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
>>> >>>>B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is
>>> >>>>created) to
>>> >>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would
>>> >>> be considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if
>>> >>> someone wants to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do
>>> >>> a little more work to get the correct system VM.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Other thoughts?
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>> >>>> >> When I first report the bug
>>> >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>> >>>> >>
>>> >>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>>> >>>> >>
>>> >>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't
>>> >>>> >>aware of that.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
>>> >>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since
>>> >>>> >I started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the
>>> >>>> >version to
>>> >>>> >4.2
>>> >>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make
>>> >>>> >it in 4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and
>>> >>>> >we've an automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
>>> >>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
>>> >>>> >appliance/template really works [2]
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I
>>> >>>> >would try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least
>>> >>>> >before 28/2, I really want to see your feature go in 4.1 Since,
>>> >>>> >4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
>>> >>>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be
>>> >>>> >used in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware)
>>> >>>> >and we could still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few
>>> >>>> >more weeks before the release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >Regards.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>> >>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >>
>>> >>>> >> --Sheng
>>> >>>> >>
>>> >>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
>>> >>>> >> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan
>>> >>>> >>> Purushothama
>>> >>>>wrote:
>>> >>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
>>> >>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The
>>> >>>> >>>>system
>>> >>>>VM
>>> >>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-m
>>> >>>>>>>>aster/
>>> >>>>>>>>las
>>> >>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am
>>> >>>> >>>>referring to the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>>> >>>> >>>
>>> >>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use
>>> >>>> >>> now
>>> >>>>are the
>>> >>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix
>>> >>>>pre-ASF).
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >
>>>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>.
I have a request that if we provide a system vm going forward that it
have virtio_console support from early on, as well as qemu-ga
(qemu-guest-agent) service started before cloud-early-config, so we
can use it to control the system vms on KVM.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti
<su...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just want to summarize what QA is doing for 4.1 validation and 4.2 so we are all on the same page.
>
> 4.1
> * we will use 4.0 template for IPV4 testing ( all QA uses this one) - (Even for this VMWare template is broken [1] and that is a different topic)
> *Sangeetha who is testing IPV6 or any others who are interested can use template provided by Sheng.
>
> 4.2 ( Master)
> * Continue to use older templates (4.0) temporarily till Rohit makes the template process streamlined for all HVs
> * Reason is being that blockers are being logged against new procedure done by Rohit [2]. It need to be tested and all templates ( xen/vmware/kvm) need to completed.
> * once he gives a go ahead all QA will consume that.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1252
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1462
>
> Hope this approach is fine for everyone.
>
> Thanks
> /Sudha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:13 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:47:25AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
>> <Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted
>> >>alone, I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole
>> >>4.1 release, to avoid confusion.
>> >
>> > As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion.
>> > People are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since
>> > it is considered experimental.
>> > I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this
>> > stage of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go
>> > with the 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks
>> > ago, I'd say, 'yeah, probably OK'.
>>
>> I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would
>> need a template. I stated so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I
>> opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1. Thanks to Rohit, we
>> started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine.
>>
>> But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the
>> issue raised by QA at last minute.
>>
>> I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in
>> 4.1. Seems nobody cares.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm
>> >>template for one release would be tricky I think.
>> >
>> > Yes, but it is experimental.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained
>> >>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside
>> >>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before,
>> >>tested enough for default template.
>> >
>> > These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we
>> > could use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the
>> > apt-get unless some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For example:
>> > - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or
>> > - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created.
>>
>> I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or confident.
>>
>> I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things.
>>
>> According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's
>> right that people not quite interested in ipv6.
>
> To be clear, I personally am *very* interested in getting IPv6 support.
> I think what we are talking about is the fact that this is experimental for 4.1 (as previously agreed).
>
>>
>> Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable
>> with updated template.
>
> +1 to that approach.
>
> And another +1 to the implied implementation of IPv6, plus a new template, plus a new template build process, plus the UI, plus lots of testing... to make IPv6 support a full feature for 4.2.
>
>>
>> --Sheng
>>
>> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785
>> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387
>> [3]
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus
>> =15159
>> >
>> >>
>> >>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade
>> >>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't
>> >>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it
>> >>again, Kelven should able to help with it.
>> >>
>> >>--Sheng
>> >>
>> >>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
>> >><ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>> >>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless
>> >>>>the ipv6 feature is required in which case:
>> >>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been
>> >>>>testing with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
>> >>>>B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is
>> >>>>created) to
>> >>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
>> >>>
>> >>> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would
>> >>> be considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if
>> >>> someone wants to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do
>> >>> a little more work to get the correct system VM.
>> >>>
>> >>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
>> >>>
>> >>> Other thoughts?
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>> >>>> >> When I first report the bug
>> >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't
>> >>>> >>aware of that.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
>> >>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since
>> >>>> >I started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the
>> >>>> >version to
>> >>>> >4.2
>> >>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make
>> >>>> >it in 4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and
>> >>>> >we've an automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
>> >>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
>> >>>> >appliance/template really works [2]
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I
>> >>>> >would try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least
>> >>>> >before 28/2, I really want to see your feature go in 4.1 Since,
>> >>>> >4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
>> >>>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be
>> >>>> >used in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware)
>> >>>> >and we could still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few
>> >>>> >more weeks before the release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >Regards.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>> >>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> --Sheng
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
>> >>>> >> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan
>> >>>> >>> Purushothama
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
>> >>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The
>> >>>> >>>>system
>> >>>>VM
>> >>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-m
>> >>>>>>>>aster/
>> >>>>>>>>las
>> >>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am
>> >>>> >>>>referring to the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use
>> >>>> >>> now
>> >>>>are the
>> >>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix
>> >>>>pre-ASF).
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >
>>
RE: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>.
Hi All,
Just want to summarize what QA is doing for 4.1 validation and 4.2 so we are all on the same page.
4.1
* we will use 4.0 template for IPV4 testing ( all QA uses this one) - (Even for this VMWare template is broken [1] and that is a different topic)
*Sangeetha who is testing IPV6 or any others who are interested can use template provided by Sheng.
4.2 ( Master)
* Continue to use older templates (4.0) temporarily till Rohit makes the template process streamlined for all HVs
* Reason is being that blockers are being logged against new procedure done by Rohit [2]. It need to be tested and all templates ( xen/vmware/kvm) need to completed.
* once he gives a go ahead all QA will consume that.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1252
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1462
Hope this approach is fine for everyone.
Thanks
/Sudha
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:13 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:47:25AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> <Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted
> >>alone, I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole
> >>4.1 release, to avoid confusion.
> >
> > As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion.
> > People are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since
> > it is considered experimental.
> > I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this
> > stage of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go
> > with the 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks
> > ago, I'd say, 'yeah, probably OK'.
>
> I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would
> need a template. I stated so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I
> opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1. Thanks to Rohit, we
> started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine.
>
> But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the
> issue raised by QA at last minute.
>
> I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in
> 4.1. Seems nobody cares.
> >
> >>
> >>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm
> >>template for one release would be tricky I think.
> >
> > Yes, but it is experimental.
> >
> >>
> >>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained
> >>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside
> >>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before,
> >>tested enough for default template.
> >
> > These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we
> > could use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the
> > apt-get unless some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For example:
> > - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or
> > - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created.
>
> I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or confident.
>
> I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things.
>
> According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's
> right that people not quite interested in ipv6.
To be clear, I personally am *very* interested in getting IPv6 support.
I think what we are talking about is the fact that this is experimental for 4.1 (as previously agreed).
>
> Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable
> with updated template.
+1 to that approach.
And another +1 to the implied implementation of IPv6, plus a new template, plus a new template build process, plus the UI, plus lots of testing... to make IPv6 support a full feature for 4.2.
>
> --Sheng
>
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785
> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387
> [3]
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus
> =15159
> >
> >>
> >>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade
> >>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't
> >>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it
> >>again, Kelven should able to help with it.
> >>
> >>--Sheng
> >>
> >>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
> >><ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> >>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless
> >>>>the ipv6 feature is required in which case:
> >>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been
> >>>>testing with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
> >>>>B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is
> >>>>created) to
> >>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
> >>>
> >>> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would
> >>> be considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if
> >>> someone wants to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do
> >>> a little more work to get the correct system VM.
> >>>
> >>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
> >>>
> >>> Other thoughts?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> >>>> >> When I first report the bug
> >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't
> >>>> >>aware of that.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
> >>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since
> >>>> >I started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the
> >>>> >version to
> >>>> >4.2
> >>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make
> >>>> >it in 4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and
> >>>> >we've an automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
> >>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
> >>>> >appliance/template really works [2]
> >>>> >
> >>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I
> >>>> >would try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least
> >>>> >before 28/2, I really want to see your feature go in 4.1 Since,
> >>>> >4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
> >>>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be
> >>>> >used in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware)
> >>>> >and we could still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few
> >>>> >more weeks before the release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Regards.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
> >>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
> >>>> >
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> --Sheng
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
> >>>> >> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> >>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan
> >>>> >>> Purushothama
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
> >>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The
> >>>> >>>>system
> >>>>VM
> >>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-m
> >>>>>>>>aster/
> >>>>>>>>las
> >>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am
> >>>> >>>>referring to the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use
> >>>> >>> now
> >>>>are the
> >>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix
> >>>>pre-ASF).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org>.
Hi Chandan, Chiradeep, Chip, Sheng and everyone,
Just wanted to share that systemvms using new appliance/image is working for me.
I'm dogfooding on DevCloud and they work for me. The only issue is
that for some reason the vhd exported from a raw disk image does not
work for now.
But one can use the VHD exported from VirtualBox, the name of the
archived artifact can be confusing:
http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/job/build-systemvm-master/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/systemvmtemplate-2013-02-28-master-hyperv.vhd.bz2
On docs and wiki vbox is said to export a VHD that is compatible with
HyperV, but I used the same on DevCloud and it worked for me. So,
using the above appliance works:
- Systemvms come up, get patched all agents run fine, there is a
latency issue, probably spring or some other issue
- RouterVM comes up, gets patched and I see networking rules being applied
- I was able to see console proxy via browser
- Was able to deploy a VM on 4.1 with following fix:
diff --git a/engine/orchestration/src/org/apache/cloudstack/platform/orchestration/CloudOrchestrator.java
b/engine/orchestration/src/org/apache/cloudstack/platform/orchestration/CloudOrches
index 34673f2..cae25ac 100755
--- a/engine/orchestration/src/org/apache/cloudstack/platform/orchestration/CloudOrchestrator.java
+++ b/engine/orchestration/src/org/apache/cloudstack/platform/orchestration/CloudOrchestrator.java
@@ -170,7 +170,15 @@ public class CloudOrchestrator implements
OrchestrationService {
}
}
- VirtualMachineEntityImpl vmEntity =
ComponentContext.inject(VirtualMachineEntityImpl.class);
+ //VirtualMachineEntityImpl vmEntity =
ComponentContext.inject(VirtualMachineEntityImpl.class);
+ VirtualMachineEntityImpl vmEntity = null;
+ try {
+ vmEntity = VirtualMachineEntityImpl.class.newInstance();
+ vmEntity = ComponentContext.inject(vmEntity);
+
+ } catch (Exception e) {
+ // add error handling here
+ }
vmEntity.init(id, owner, hostName, displayName, cpu, speed,
memory, computeTags, rootDiskTags, new
ArrayList<String>(networkNicMap.keySet()));
Will start another thread, so it gets noticed.
Regards.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:47:25AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
>> <Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted alone,
>> >>I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole 4.1
>> >>release, to avoid confusion.
>> >
>> > As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion. People
>> > are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since it is
>> > considered experimental.
>> > I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this stage
>> > of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go with the
>> > 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks ago, I'd say,
>> > 'yeah, probably OK'.
>>
>> I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would
>> need a template. I stated so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I
>> opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1. Thanks to Rohit, we
>> started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine.
>>
>> But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the
>> issue raised by QA at last minute.
>>
>> I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in
>> 4.1. Seems nobody cares.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm template
>> >>for one release would be tricky I think.
>> >
>> > Yes, but it is experimental.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained
>> >>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside
>> >>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, tested
>> >>enough for default template.
>> >
>> > These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we could
>> > use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the apt-get unless
>> > some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For example:
>> > - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or
>> > - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created.
>>
>> I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or confident.
>>
>> I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things.
>>
>> According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's
>> right that people not quite interested in ipv6.
>
> To be clear, I personally am *very* interested in getting IPv6 support.
> I think what we are talking about is the fact that this is experimental
> for 4.1 (as previously agreed).
>
>>
>> Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable
>> with updated template.
>
> +1 to that approach.
>
> And another +1 to the implied implementation of IPv6, plus a new
> template, plus a new template build process, plus the UI, plus lots of
> testing... to make IPv6 support a full feature for 4.2.
>
>>
>> --Sheng
>>
>> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785
>> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387
>> [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus=15159
>> >
>> >>
>> >>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade
>> >>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't
>> >>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it again,
>> >>Kelven should able to help with it.
>> >>
>> >>--Sheng
>> >>
>> >>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
>> >><ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>> >>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6
>> >>>> feature is required in which case:
>> >>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing
>> >>>> with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
>> >>>> B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is
>> >>>>created) to
>> >>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
>> >>>
>> >>> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be
>> >>> considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if someone wants
>> >>> to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little more work
>> >>> to get the correct system VM.
>> >>>
>> >>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
>> >>>
>> >>> Other thoughts?
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>> >>>> >> When I first report the bug
>> >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of
>> >>>> >>that.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
>> >>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I
>> >>>> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to
>> >>>> >4.2
>> >>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in
>> >>>> >4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an
>> >>>> >automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
>> >>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
>> >>>> >appliance/template really works [2]
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would
>> >>>> >try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I
>> >>>> >really want to see your feature go in 4.1
>> >>>> >Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
>> >>>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used
>> >>>> >in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could
>> >>>> >still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the
>> >>>> >release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >Regards.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>> >>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> --Sheng
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
>> >>>> >> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
>> >>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system
>> >>>>VM
>> >>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/
>> >>>>>>>>las
>> >>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to
>> >>>> >>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now
>> >>>>are the
>> >>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix
>> >>>>pre-ASF).
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >
>>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:47:25AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> <Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted alone,
> >>I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole 4.1
> >>release, to avoid confusion.
> >
> > As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion. People
> > are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since it is
> > considered experimental.
> > I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this stage
> > of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go with the
> > 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks ago, I'd say,
> > 'yeah, probably OK'.
>
> I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would
> need a template. I stated so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I
> opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1. Thanks to Rohit, we
> started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine.
>
> But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the
> issue raised by QA at last minute.
>
> I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in
> 4.1. Seems nobody cares.
> >
> >>
> >>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm template
> >>for one release would be tricky I think.
> >
> > Yes, but it is experimental.
> >
> >>
> >>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained
> >>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside
> >>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, tested
> >>enough for default template.
> >
> > These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we could
> > use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the apt-get unless
> > some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For example:
> > - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or
> > - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created.
>
> I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or confident.
>
> I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things.
>
> According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's
> right that people not quite interested in ipv6.
To be clear, I personally am *very* interested in getting IPv6 support.
I think what we are talking about is the fact that this is experimental
for 4.1 (as previously agreed).
>
> Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable
> with updated template.
+1 to that approach.
And another +1 to the implied implementation of IPv6, plus a new
template, plus a new template build process, plus the UI, plus lots of
testing... to make IPv6 support a full feature for 4.2.
>
> --Sheng
>
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785
> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387
> [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus=15159
> >
> >>
> >>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade
> >>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't
> >>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it again,
> >>Kelven should able to help with it.
> >>
> >>--Sheng
> >>
> >>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
> >><ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> >>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6
> >>>> feature is required in which case:
> >>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing
> >>>> with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
> >>>> B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is
> >>>>created) to
> >>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
> >>>
> >>> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be
> >>> considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if someone wants
> >>> to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little more work
> >>> to get the correct system VM.
> >>>
> >>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
> >>>
> >>> Other thoughts?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> >>>> >> When I first report the bug
> >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of
> >>>> >>that.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
> >>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I
> >>>> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to
> >>>> >4.2
> >>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in
> >>>> >4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an
> >>>> >automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
> >>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
> >>>> >appliance/template really works [2]
> >>>> >
> >>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would
> >>>> >try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I
> >>>> >really want to see your feature go in 4.1
> >>>> >Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
> >>>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used
> >>>> >in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could
> >>>> >still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the
> >>>> >release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Regards.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
> >>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
> >>>> >
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> --Sheng
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
> >>>> >> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> >>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
> >>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system
> >>>>VM
> >>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/
> >>>>>>>>las
> >>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to
> >>>> >>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now
> >>>>are the
> >>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix
> >>>>pre-ASF).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
>
RE: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Chandan Purushothama <Ch...@citrix.com>.
Sheng,
May I know where are you planning to upload the templates to?
Thank you,
Chandan.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:47 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>
>>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted alone,
>>I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole 4.1
>>release, to avoid confusion.
>
> As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion.
> People are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since
> it is considered experimental.
> I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this
> stage of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go with
> the 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks ago,
> I'd say, 'yeah, probably OK'.
I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would need a template. I stated so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1. Thanks to Rohit, we started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine.
But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the issue raised by QA at last minute.
I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in 4.1. Seems nobody cares.
>
>>
>>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm template
>>for one release would be tricky I think.
>
> Yes, but it is experimental.
>
>>
>>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained
>>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside
>>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, tested
>>enough for default template.
>
> These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we
> could use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the
> apt-get unless some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For example:
> - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or
> - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created.
I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or confident.
I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things.
According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's right that people not quite interested in ipv6.
Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable with updated template.
--Sheng
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785
[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387
[3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus=15159
>
>>
>>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade
>>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't
>>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it again,
>>Kelven should able to help with it.
>>
>>--Sheng
>>
>>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
>><ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the
>>>>ipv6 feature is required in which case:
>>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been
>>>>testing with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
>>>>B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is
>>>>created) to
>>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
>>>
>>> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be
>>> considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if someone
>>> wants to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little
>>> more work to get the correct system VM.
>>>
>>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
>>>
>>> Other thoughts?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>>> >> When I first report the bug
>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware
>>>> >>of that.
>>>> >
>>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
>>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I
>>>> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version
>>>> >to
>>>> >4.2
>>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make
>>>> >it in 4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've
>>>> >an automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
>>>> >
>>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
>>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
>>>> >appliance/template really works [2]
>>>> >
>>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I
>>>> >would try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before
>>>> >28/2, I really want to see your feature go in 4.1 Since, 4.1 is
>>>> >frozen, community would have to make an exception to at least
>>>> >allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used in
>>>> >case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we
>>>> >could still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks
>>>> >before the release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
>>>> >
>>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
>>>> >
>>>> >Regards.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --Sheng
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
>>>> >> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama
>>>>wrote:
>>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
>>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The
>>>> >>>>system
>>>>VM
>>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-mas
>>>>>>>>ter/
>>>>>>>>las
>>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am
>>>> >>>>referring to the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now
>>>>are the
>>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix
>>>>pre-ASF).
>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
<Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>
>>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted alone,
>>I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole 4.1
>>release, to avoid confusion.
>
> As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion. People
> are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since it is
> considered experimental.
> I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this stage
> of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go with the
> 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks ago, I'd say,
> 'yeah, probably OK'.
I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would
need a template. I stated so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I
opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1. Thanks to Rohit, we
started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine.
But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the
issue raised by QA at last minute.
I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in
4.1. Seems nobody cares.
>
>>
>>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm template
>>for one release would be tricky I think.
>
> Yes, but it is experimental.
>
>>
>>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained
>>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside
>>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, tested
>>enough for default template.
>
> These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we could
> use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the apt-get unless
> some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For example:
> - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or
> - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created.
I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or confident.
I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things.
According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's
right that people not quite interested in ipv6.
Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable
with updated template.
--Sheng
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785
[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387
[3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus=15159
>
>>
>>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade
>>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't
>>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it again,
>>Kelven should able to help with it.
>>
>>--Sheng
>>
>>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
>><ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6
>>>> feature is required in which case:
>>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing
>>>> with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
>>>> B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is
>>>>created) to
>>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
>>>
>>> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be
>>> considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if someone wants
>>> to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little more work
>>> to get the correct system VM.
>>>
>>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
>>>
>>> Other thoughts?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>>> >> When I first report the bug
>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of
>>>> >>that.
>>>> >
>>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
>>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I
>>>> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to
>>>> >4.2
>>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in
>>>> >4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an
>>>> >automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
>>>> >
>>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
>>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
>>>> >appliance/template really works [2]
>>>> >
>>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would
>>>> >try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I
>>>> >really want to see your feature go in 4.1
>>>> >Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
>>>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used
>>>> >in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could
>>>> >still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the
>>>> >release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
>>>> >
>>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
>>>> >
>>>> >Regards.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --Sheng
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
>>>> >> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama
>>>>wrote:
>>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
>>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system
>>>>VM
>>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/
>>>>>>>>las
>>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to
>>>> >>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now
>>>>are the
>>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix
>>>>pre-ASF).
>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>.
Add Kevlen.
I remember Kevlen build a new template for VMware, add vmware tools to
it after Action. Probably that's the one 4.0.0 use? If so, we should
keep using that one(before 4.1).
--Sheng
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Jessica Tomechak
<je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Checking the docs per Will's request earlier in this thread: I see that the
> documented systemvm template URL for VMware (vSphere) changed from 4.0.0 to
> 4.0.1, but none of the others have been updated. The VMware template
> actually went backwards from a newer to an older version. I don't think I
> did that, and I'm not sure why it happened. Nor am I sure which one (if
> either) is appropriate for 4.1.
>
> 4.0.0 docs had:
> http://download.cloud.com/templates/burbank/burbank-systemvm-08012012.ova
>
> 4.0.1 docs had:
> http://download.cloud.com/templates/acton/acton-systemvm-02062012.ova
>
> 4.1 doc directory currently has:
> http://download.cloud.com/templates/acton/acton-systemvm-02062012.ova
>
> Can Sheng, Kelven, or anyone else shed light on this? Or is this question
> now moot, given the discussion on this thread?
>
> Jessica T.
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>
>> Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted alone,
>> I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole 4.1
>> release, to avoid confusion.
>>
>> Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm template
>> for one release would be tricky I think.
>>
>> And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained
>> upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside
>> that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, tested
>> enough for default template.
>>
>> VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade
>> the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't
>> affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it again,
>> Kelven should able to help with it.
>>
>> --Sheng
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
>> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>> >> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6
>> >> feature is required in which case:
>> >> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing
>> >> with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
>> >> B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is created)
>> to
>> >> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
>> >
>> > I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be
>> > considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if someone wants
>> > to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little more work
>> > to get the correct system VM.
>> >
>> > As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
>> >
>> > Other thoughts?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>> >> >> When I first report the bug
>> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of
>> >> >>that.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
>> >> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I
>> >> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to
>> >> >4.2
>> >> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in
>> >> >4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an
>> >> >automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
>> >> >
>> >> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
>> >> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
>> >> >appliance/template really works [2]
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would
>> >> >try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I
>> >> >really want to see your feature go in 4.1
>> >> >Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
>> >> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used
>> >> >in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could
>> >> >still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the
>> >> >release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
>> >> >
>> >> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
>> >> >
>> >> >Regards.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>> >> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --Sheng
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
>> >> >> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
>> >> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system
>> VM
>> >> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
>> >> >>>>
>> http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/las
>> >> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to
>> >> >>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now are
>> the
>> >> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix
>> pre-ASF).
>> >>
>> >>
>>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Jessica Tomechak <je...@gmail.com>.
Checking the docs per Will's request earlier in this thread: I see that the
documented systemvm template URL for VMware (vSphere) changed from 4.0.0 to
4.0.1, but none of the others have been updated. The VMware template
actually went backwards from a newer to an older version. I don't think I
did that, and I'm not sure why it happened. Nor am I sure which one (if
either) is appropriate for 4.1.
4.0.0 docs had:
http://download.cloud.com/templates/burbank/burbank-systemvm-08012012.ova
4.0.1 docs had:
http://download.cloud.com/templates/acton/acton-systemvm-02062012.ova
4.1 doc directory currently has:
http://download.cloud.com/templates/acton/acton-systemvm-02062012.ova
Can Sheng, Kelven, or anyone else shed light on this? Or is this question
now moot, given the discussion on this thread?
Jessica T.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted alone,
> I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole 4.1
> release, to avoid confusion.
>
> Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm template
> for one release would be tricky I think.
>
> And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained
> upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside
> that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, tested
> enough for default template.
>
> VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade
> the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't
> affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it again,
> Kelven should able to help with it.
>
> --Sheng
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> >> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6
> >> feature is required in which case:
> >> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing
> >> with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
> >> B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is created)
> to
> >> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
> >
> > I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be
> > considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if someone wants
> > to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little more work
> > to get the correct system VM.
> >
> > As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
> >
> > Other thoughts?
> >
> >>
> >> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> >> >> When I first report the bug
> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
> >> >>
> >> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
> >> >>
> >> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of
> >> >>that.
> >> >
> >> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
> >> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I
> >> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to
> >> >4.2
> >> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in
> >> >4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an
> >> >automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
> >> >
> >> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
> >> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
> >> >appliance/template really works [2]
> >> >
> >> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would
> >> >try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I
> >> >really want to see your feature go in 4.1
> >> >Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
> >> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used
> >> >in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could
> >> >still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the
> >> >release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
> >> >
> >> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
> >> >
> >> >Regards.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
> >> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> --Sheng
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
> >> >> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> >> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama
> wrote:
> >> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
> >> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system
> VM
> >> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
> >> >>>>
> http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/las
> >> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to
> >> >>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now are
> the
> >> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix
> pre-ASF).
> >>
> >>
>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Jessica Tomechak <je...@gmail.com>.
Checking the docs per Will's request earlier in this thread: I see that the
documented systemvm template URL for VMware (vSphere) changed from 4.0.0 to
4.0.1, but none of the others have been updated. The VMware template
actually went backwards from a newer to an older version. I don't think I
did that, and I'm not sure why it happened. Nor am I sure which one (if
either) is appropriate for 4.1.
4.0.0 docs had:
http://download.cloud.com/templates/burbank/burbank-systemvm-08012012.ova
4.0.1 docs had:
http://download.cloud.com/templates/acton/acton-systemvm-02062012.ova
4.1 doc directory currently has:
http://download.cloud.com/templates/acton/acton-systemvm-02062012.ova
Can Sheng, Kelven, or anyone else shed light on this? Or is this question
now moot, given the discussion on this thread?
Jessica T.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted alone,
> I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole 4.1
> release, to avoid confusion.
>
> Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm template
> for one release would be tricky I think.
>
> And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained
> upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside
> that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, tested
> enough for default template.
>
> VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade
> the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't
> affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it again,
> Kelven should able to help with it.
>
> --Sheng
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> >> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6
> >> feature is required in which case:
> >> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing
> >> with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
> >> B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is created)
> to
> >> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
> >
> > I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be
> > considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if someone wants
> > to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little more work
> > to get the correct system VM.
> >
> > As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
> >
> > Other thoughts?
> >
> >>
> >> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> >> >> When I first report the bug
> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
> >> >>
> >> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
> >> >>
> >> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of
> >> >>that.
> >> >
> >> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
> >> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I
> >> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to
> >> >4.2
> >> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in
> >> >4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an
> >> >automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
> >> >
> >> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
> >> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
> >> >appliance/template really works [2]
> >> >
> >> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would
> >> >try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I
> >> >really want to see your feature go in 4.1
> >> >Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
> >> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used
> >> >in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could
> >> >still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the
> >> >release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
> >> >
> >> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
> >> >
> >> >Regards.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
> >> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> --Sheng
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
> >> >> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> >> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama
> wrote:
> >> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
> >> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system
> VM
> >> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
> >> >>>>
> http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/las
> >> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to
> >> >>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now are
> the
> >> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix
> pre-ASF).
> >>
> >>
>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted alone,
>I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole 4.1
>release, to avoid confusion.
As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion. People
are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since it is
considered experimental.
I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this stage
of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go with the
2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks ago, I'd say,
'yeah, probably OK'.
>
>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm template
>for one release would be tricky I think.
Yes, but it is experimental.
>
>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained
>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside
>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, tested
>enough for default template.
These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we could
use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the apt-get unless
some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For example:
- a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or
- whenever an ipv6 subnet is created.
>
>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade
>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't
>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it again,
>Kelven should able to help with it.
>
>--Sheng
>
>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
><ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6
>>> feature is required in which case:
>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing
>>> with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
>>> B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is
>>>created) to
>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
>>
>> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be
>> considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if someone wants
>> to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little more work
>> to get the correct system VM.
>>
>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
>>
>> Other thoughts?
>>
>>>
>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>> >> When I first report the bug
>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>> >>
>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>>> >>
>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of
>>> >>that.
>>> >
>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I
>>> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to
>>> >4.2
>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in
>>> >4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an
>>> >automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
>>> >
>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
>>> >appliance/template really works [2]
>>> >
>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would
>>> >try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I
>>> >really want to see your feature go in 4.1
>>> >Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
>>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used
>>> >in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could
>>> >still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the
>>> >release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
>>> >
>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
>>> >
>>> >Regards.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> --Sheng
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
>>> >> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama
>>>wrote:
>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system
>>>VM
>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
>>>
>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/
>>>>>>>las
>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to
>>> >>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now
>>>are the
>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix
>>>pre-ASF).
>>>
>>>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>.
Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted alone,
I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole 4.1
release, to avoid confusion.
Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm template
for one release would be tricky I think.
And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained
upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside
that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, tested
enough for default template.
VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade
the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't
affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it again,
Kelven should able to help with it.
--Sheng
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
<ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6
>> feature is required in which case:
>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing
>> with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
>> B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is created) to
>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
>
> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be
> considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if someone wants
> to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little more work
> to get the correct system VM.
>
> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
>
> Other thoughts?
>
>>
>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>> >> When I first report the bug
>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>> >>
>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>> >>
>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of
>> >>that.
>> >
>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I
>> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to
>> >4.2
>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in
>> >4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an
>> >automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
>> >
>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
>> >appliance/template really works [2]
>> >
>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would
>> >try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I
>> >really want to see your feature go in 4.1
>> >Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used
>> >in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could
>> >still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the
>> >release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
>> >
>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
>> >
>> >Regards.
>> >
>> >
>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
>> >
>> >>
>> >> --Sheng
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
>> >> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama wrote:
>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system VM
>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
>> >>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/las
>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to
>> >>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>> >>>
>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now are the
>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix pre-ASF).
>>
>>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>.
Yes, that's what I was thinking. We use the current system VM as the
official one, and then say "hey, if you want to try out ipv6, use this
image instead" or provide the instructions to build it.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Chip Childers
<ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6
>> feature is required in which case:
>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing
>> with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
>> B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is created) to
>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
>
> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be
> considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if someone wants
> to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little more work
> to get the correct system VM.
>
> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
>
> Other thoughts?
>
>>
>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>> >> When I first report the bug
>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>> >>
>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>> >>
>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of
>> >>that.
>> >
>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I
>> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to
>> >4.2
>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in
>> >4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an
>> >automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
>> >
>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
>> >appliance/template really works [2]
>> >
>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would
>> >try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I
>> >really want to see your feature go in 4.1
>> >Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used
>> >in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could
>> >still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the
>> >release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
>> >
>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
>> >
>> >Regards.
>> >
>> >
>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
>> >
>> >>
>> >> --Sheng
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
>> >> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama wrote:
>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system VM
>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
>> >>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/las
>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to
>> >>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>> >>>
>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now are the
>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix pre-ASF).
>>
>>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6
> feature is required in which case:
> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing
> with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
> B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is created) to
> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be
considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if someone wants
to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little more work
to get the correct system VM.
As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
Other thoughts?
>
> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> >> When I first report the bug
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
> >>
> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
> >>
> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of
> >>that.
> >
> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I
> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to
> >4.2
> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in
> >4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an
> >automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
> >
> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
> >appliance/template really works [2]
> >
> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would
> >try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I
> >really want to see your feature go in 4.1
> >Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used
> >in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could
> >still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the
> >release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
> >
> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
> >
> >Regards.
> >
> >
> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
> >
> >>
> >> --Sheng
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
> >> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama wrote:
> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system VM
> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
> >>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/las
> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to
> >>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
> >>>
> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now are the
> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix pre-ASF).
>
>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Chiradeep Vittal
<Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6
> feature is required in which case:
> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing
> with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
> B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is created) to
> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
Yes, we can do either of those and also give option for people to
build their own or get from the jenkins job [1] if they want ipv6
features.
Nonetheless, let's test/fix the systemvm; I've few questions for
Sheng, Chiradeep:
- Do we need to install xe-guest-utilities, pv drivers for windows? I
cannot locate a publicly available latest version for debian:
http://downloads.xen.org/XCP/debian/xs-tools-5.9.960.iso I can make it
build and install if needed. Also, do we need any other host
additions?
- Pl. some recent commits and check any packages that needs to be
installed/removed and configuration fixing that needs to be done.
Comparing the new and old scripts can help:
tools/appliance/definitions/systemvmtemplate/postinstall.sh and
patches/systemvm/debian/buildsystemvm.sh
- Chiradeep instead of wget-ing only few scripts, I'm copying all the
configs from latest source tarball from master, signature is also
fixed. The same was done in the old script, pl. check if that needs
any correction.
- There are some grub cmdline and inittab related fixed on old script,
inittab fix has been moved, don't know what to do about the grub
cmdline fix.
- acpid fix moved from old script, pl. check if that needs any correction
Lastly , I need help as I've no idea what really goes into building
systemvm, I can only refer to the
scripts/systemvm/debian/buildsystemvm.sh
Regards.
>
> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>> When I first report the bug
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>>
>>> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>>>
>>> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of
>>>that.
>>
>>Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
>>feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I
>>started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to
>>4.2
>>It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in
>>4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an
>>automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
>>
>>- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
>>- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
>>appliance/template really works [2]
>>
>>I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would
>>try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I
>>really want to see your feature go in 4.1
>>Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
>>least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used
>>in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could
>>still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the
>>release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
>>
>>Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
>>
>>Regards.
>>
>>
>>[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
>>
>>>
>>> --Sheng
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
>>> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama wrote:
>>>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
>>>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system VM
>>>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/las
>>>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to
>>>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>>>>
>>>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now are the
>>>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix pre-ASF).
>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6
feature is required in which case:
A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing
with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is created) to
apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bh...@apache.org> wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>> When I first report the bug
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>
>> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>>
>> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of
>>that.
>
>Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
>feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I
>started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to
>4.2
>It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in
>4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an
>automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
>
>- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
>- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
>appliance/template really works [2]
>
>I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would
>try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I
>really want to see your feature go in 4.1
>Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
>least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used
>in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could
>still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the
>release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
>
>Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
>
>Regards.
>
>
>[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
>
>>
>> --Sheng
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
>> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama wrote:
>>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
>>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system VM
>>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch
>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/las
>>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to
>>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>>>
>>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now are the
>>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix pre-ASF).
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> When I first report the bug
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>
> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>
> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of that.
Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the
feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I
started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to
4.2
It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in
4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an
automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
appliance/template really works [2]
I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would
try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I
really want to see your feature go in 4.1
Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at
least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used
in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could
still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the
release; otherwise we can always use the same old template.
Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
Regards.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
>
> --Sheng
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama wrote:
>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system VM Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>>
>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now are the
>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix pre-ASF).
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>.
When I first report the bug
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of that.
--Sheng
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
<ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama wrote:
>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system VM Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
>
> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now are the
> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix pre-ASF).
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama wrote:
> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system VM Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now are the
same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix pre-ASF).
RE: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Chandan Purushothama <Ch...@citrix.com>.
Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system VM Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question.
Thank you,
Chandan.
-----Original Message-----
From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:58 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
I could have sworn Rohit posted Jenkins build of sysvms... but I cant seem to find it..
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:55 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:50:42PM -0800, Will Chan wrote:
> What does the 4.1 documentation say? I would follow that unless someone here can claim that it has not been updated with the instructions of how to get the system template for 4.1.
>
> Will
>
The problem right now, is that IPv6 requires the new system vm (I think), but we have not fully tested the new system VM build process.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chandan Purushothama [mailto:Chandan.Purushothama@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:39 AM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > May I know whether we have a set of ASF 4.1 System VM Templates for
> > all supported hypervisors. If Yes, then May I know the locations of
> > the System VM Templates that I can download to work with the
> > features offered in ASF
> > 4.1 code. Kindly let me know,
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Chandan.
>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
That was for (master) 4.2
On 2/26/13 1:57 PM, "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net> wrote:
>I could have sworn Rohit posted Jenkins build of sysvms... but I cant
>seem to find it..
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:55 PM
>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
>
>On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:50:42PM -0800, Will Chan wrote:
>> What does the 4.1 documentation say? I would follow that unless
>>someone here can claim that it has not been updated with the
>>instructions of how to get the system template for 4.1.
>>
>> Will
>>
>
>The problem right now, is that IPv6 requires the new system vm (I think),
>but we have not fully tested the new system VM build process.
>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Chandan Purushothama [mailto:Chandan.Purushothama@citrix.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:39 AM
>> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > May I know whether we have a set of ASF 4.1 System VM Templates for
>> > all supported hypervisors. If Yes, then May I know the locations of
>> > the System VM Templates that I can download to work with the
>> > features offered in ASF
>> > 4.1 code. Kindly let me know,
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > Chandan.
>>
>
>
RE: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net>.
I could have sworn Rohit posted Jenkins build of sysvms... but I cant seem to find it..
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:55 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:50:42PM -0800, Will Chan wrote:
> What does the 4.1 documentation say? I would follow that unless someone here can claim that it has not been updated with the instructions of how to get the system template for 4.1.
>
> Will
>
The problem right now, is that IPv6 requires the new system vm (I think), but we have not fully tested the new system VM build process.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chandan Purushothama [mailto:Chandan.Purushothama@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:39 AM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > May I know whether we have a set of ASF 4.1 System VM Templates for
> > all supported hypervisors. If Yes, then May I know the locations of
> > the System VM Templates that I can download to work with the
> > features offered in ASF
> > 4.1 code. Kindly let me know,
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Chandan.
>
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:50:42PM -0800, Will Chan wrote:
> What does the 4.1 documentation say? I would follow that unless someone here can claim that it has not been updated with the instructions of how to get the system template for 4.1.
>
> Will
>
The problem right now, is that IPv6 requires the new system vm (I
think), but we have not fully tested the new system VM build process.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chandan Purushothama [mailto:Chandan.Purushothama@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:39 AM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > May I know whether we have a set of ASF 4.1 System VM Templates for all
> > supported hypervisors. If Yes, then May I know the locations of the System
> > VM Templates that I can download to work with the features offered in ASF
> > 4.1 code. Kindly let me know,
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Chandan.
>
RE: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Will Chan <wi...@citrix.com>.
What does the 4.1 documentation say? I would follow that unless someone here can claim that it has not been updated with the instructions of how to get the system template for 4.1.
Will
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chandan Purushothama [mailto:Chandan.Purushothama@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:39 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
>
> Hello,
>
> May I know whether we have a set of ASF 4.1 System VM Templates for all
> supported hypervisors. If Yes, then May I know the locations of the System
> VM Templates that I can download to work with the features offered in ASF
> 4.1 code. Kindly let me know,
>
> Thank you,
> Chandan.
Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Posted by Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Chandan Purushothama
<Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> May I know whether we have a set of ASF 4.1 System VM Templates for all supported hypervisors. If Yes, then May I know the locations of the System VM Templates that I can download to work with the features offered in ASF 4.1 code. Kindly let me know,
Chandan, you can help by getting the Xen systemvm template from
jenkins and test it. After we go through some initial test/fix cycles
you can try the rest of them.
Regards.
>
> Thank you,
> Chandan.