Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
XenServer 7 Support - #1711
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Member
Thanks @syed for your PR. I'll kick some tests following merge of PR #1708. @blueorangutan package |
blueorangutan
commented
Oct 18, 2016
@rhtyd a Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
blueorangutan
commented
Oct 18, 2016
Packaging result: ✔centos6 ✔centos7 ✖debian. JID-62 |
yadvr
commented
Oct 18, 2016
Member
There was an env issue with the debian package job, it has been re-fired. |
blueorangutan
commented
Oct 18, 2016
Packaging result: ✔centos6 ✔centos7 ✔debian. JID-63 |
| @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ | |||
| # Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one | |||
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the content of this same as that of XS6.5? If so then this is not needed, the 6.5 one can be reused.
ContributorAuthor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks Koushik for the review. I have removed this file and am using the 6.5 one.
| @Override | ||
| protected String getPatchFilePath() { | ||
| return "scripts/vm/hypervisor/xenserver/xenserver70/patch"; |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Refer to the comment on patch file, if same as XS 6.5 then XenServer650Resource can be reused
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Additional DB changes are also needed for guest OS mapping and HV capabilities table.
syed
commented
Oct 18, 2016
ContributorAuthor
@koushik-das Thank you for the review! I've added the guest OS mappings and hypervisor capabilities. |
Member
test_primary_storage.py fails iSCSI test.
cloudstack-management log reports:
Running setup_heartbeat_sr.sh manually returns:
adding --config global{metadata_read_only=0} to line 75 (lvcreate VG_XenStorage-$2 -n hb-$1 --size 4M) resolves the issue. I don't know if adding that global config switch is persisted or if it has other side effects. But it allows iSCSI to attach and hb volume to be created... |
PaulAngus
commented
Oct 20, 2016
Member
Results from smoke tests (with above iscsi fix in) Test completed. 41 look ok, 7 have error(s) in addition to the the known VPC issues there are: test_07_resize_fail | I'll look at these (tomorrow as i'm with customer all day today)...
|
syed
commented
Oct 20, 2016
ContributorAuthor
@PaulAngus I'm running the tests that failed for you on my setup. I will update with what I find. |
ContributorAuthor
I've tested the failed checks. I found a problem with the marvin check that was doing size check. I've modified it so now it works correctly.
This seems to be the issue with the SSVM apache server. It gives a forbidden error
|
yadvr
commented
Oct 21, 2016
Member
@blueorangutan package |
blueorangutan
commented
Oct 21, 2016
@rhtyd a Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
blueorangutan
commented
Oct 21, 2016
Packaging result: ✔centos6 ✔centos7 ✔debian. JID-69 |
syed
commented
Oct 25, 2016
ContributorAuthor
@PaulAngus would it be possible to run another round of tests on this? |
yadvr
commented
Oct 26, 2016
Member
@blueorangutan test matrix |
blueorangutan
commented
Oct 26, 2016
@rhtyd a Trillian-Jenkins matrix job (centos6 mgmt + xs65sp1, centos7 mgmt + vmware55u3, centos7 mgmt + kvmcentos7) has been kicked to run smoke tests |
| INSERT IGNORE INTO `cloud`.`hypervisor_capabilities`(uuid, hypervisor_type, hypervisor_version, max_guests_limit, security_group_enabled, max_data_volumes_limit, storage_motion_supported) VALUES (UUID(), 'XenServer', '7.0.0', 500, 1, 255, 1); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As per XS documentation 255 is max. disks that can be attached to VM and includes root, cd drive and iso (?). If you look at the field name in DB it says data disk so the number should be 255-3=252. Check other XS entries as well.
koushik-das
commented
Oct 26, 2016
Contributor
One small comment, rest of the code LGTM. |
blueorangutan
commented
Oct 26, 2016
Trillian test result (tid-183)
|
blueorangutan
commented
Oct 26, 2016
Trillian test result (tid-192)
|
syed
commented
Oct 26, 2016
ContributorAuthor
@rhtyd @PaulAngus I will verify the failed tests (except VPC and private gateway) and update this. It would be nice if we can get this into 4.10 |
jburwell
commented
Oct 26, 2016
Contributor
@syed given that XenServer 6.5 doesn't run on newer hardware, XenServer users don't have a realistic LTS release. Therefore, I propose that this PR be targeted to the 4.9 branch and forward merged to master. Therefore, this feature would released in 4.9.2.0 and 4.11.0.0. |
syed
commented
Oct 26, 2016
ContributorAuthor
@jburwell Got it. I want to stabilize the tests and once everything looks green here. I will open a PR against 4.9 |
jburwell
commented
Oct 26, 2016
Contributor
@syed +1 -- I would like to see a full component test run for this PR on XS 7 and smoke tests for XS 6.5. Also, we might want to consider a PR for 4.9 and then another PR for master like we did for the smoke test fixes. This approach allows us to re-run all tests on the forward merge. I will perform a code review tonight or tomorrow. Have you reviewed all the Marvin component tests that check XS versions to ensure we won't incorrectly skip any for XS 7? @rhtyd @PaulAngus do we have XS 7 support for Blue Orangutan? |
syed
commented
Oct 27, 2016
ContributorAuthor
@jburwell I have reviewed all the smoke tests and I have not found at any place we skipping because of a version mismatch so we are good there. I still have to figure out why some of the tests are failing especially the ones related to snapshots |
ArmedGuy
commented
Oct 28, 2016
@PaulAngus --config is not persistent, but helpfully overrides metadata_read_only = 1 which is set in /etc/lvm/lvm.conf on XS7. But I second that |
blueorangutan
commented
Dec 13, 2016
Trillian test result (tid-676)
|
yadvr
commented
Dec 19, 2016
Member
@PaulAngus@karuturi@koushik-das@syed are we good on this PR, the changes look good to me and should not cause regressions. We can fire one round of testing. |
syed
commented
Dec 19, 2016
ContributorAuthor
I think we're good on this. We can run another round of testing. |
koushik-das
commented
Dec 20, 2016
Contributor
Code changes are good. In the last test run I am seeing test_01_primary_storage_iscsi is failing. Do we know the reason for that? |
yadvr
commented
Dec 20, 2016
Member
@koushik-das we can ignore that, Trillian's env does not support iscsi mount point for xenserver (from my last memories). |
blueorangutan
commented
Dec 20, 2016
@rhtyd a Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
blueorangutan
commented
Dec 20, 2016
Packaging result: ✔centos6 ✔centos7 ✔debian. JID-404 |
yadvr
commented
Dec 20, 2016
Member
@blueorangutan test centos7 xenserver-65sp1 |
blueorangutan
commented
Dec 20, 2016
@rhtyd a Trillian-Jenkins test job (centos7 mgmt + xenserver-65sp1) has been kicked to run smoke tests |
blueorangutan
commented
Dec 21, 2016
Trillian test result (tid-694)
|
yadvr
commented
Dec 21, 2016
Member
LGTM on test. Some of the failing tests are known intermittent issues or fixed in a separate PR. Merging this now. |
yadvr
commented
Dec 21, 2016
Member
@syed can you move the sql changes to a new path, setup/db/db/schema-4910to4920.sql and make appropriate db changes? Thanks. After this I'm willing to merge this PR. |
syed
commented
Dec 21, 2016
ContributorAuthor
@rhtyd moved the DB changes to |
yadvr
commented
Dec 22, 2016
Member
@syed can you commit the file as well, apart from putting the changes in the new DB schema you'll also have to create a DB upgrade path. If you add the file, I can help with rest of the db upgrade path work. |
syed
commented
Dec 22, 2016
ContributorAuthor
@rhtyd the file is there ... somehow doesn't show in the diff you have to manually load it |
yadvr
commented
Dec 22, 2016
Member
yadvr
commented
Dec 22, 2016
Member
Checked tests, the failure was due to missing licence in sql file. I've fixed that and a conflict as upgrade paths were missing, simply adding a sql file does not add it to the upgrade path. I'll proceed with merging this now based on manual tests and test results from previous runs. |
asfgit pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 22, 2016
schema: Upgrade path from 4.9.1.0 to 4.9.2.0Upgrade paths added so PRs such as #1711 can use it. * pr/1851: schema: Upgrade path from 4.9.1.0 to 4.9.2.0 Signed-off-by: Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com>
asfgit pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 22, 2016
XenServer 7 SupportThis PR adds support for XenServer 7. I have manually done the following tests - Create a new cluster with XenServer7 - Add Primary storage: Should create an SR on XS7 - Add another XS7 host to the Pool - Add host2 to Cloudstack - Create VM1 from template - Create VM2 from template - Ping/SSH VM1 to VM2 and vice-versa - Stop/Delete/Expunge VM2 - Create Data disk - Attach it to VM1 - Create VM snaphsot of VM1 - Restore VM snapshot of VM1 - Delete VM snapshot of VM1 - Create Volume snapshot of Datadisk - Create volume snapshot of Root disk - Create new template from snapshot of root disk - Create volume from snapshot of datadisk - Detach datadisk volume - Delete datadisk volume - Aquire a public IP - Create a static nat to VM1 - Live migrate VM1 while traffic on VM - Delete VM1 * pr/1711: [CLOUDSTACK-9662] Add support for XenServer 7 Signed-off-by: Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com>
ciroiriarte
commented
Jan 21, 2017
Hi!, is this already included in 4.9.2.0?, I'm installing a new XS7 lab and would like to integrate it with Cloudstack. |
serg38
commented
Jan 22, 2017
Yes it is in 4.9.2. |
ciroiriarte
commented
Jan 29, 2017
Are these messages expected? 2017-01-29 00:02:24,476 WARN [c.c.a.d.ParamGenericValidationWorker] (catalina-exec-10:ctx-6776e3dd ctx-a85fb6b1) (logid:a578d2b0) Received unknown parameters for command addHost. Unknown parameters : clustertype |
ciroiriarte
commented
Jan 29, 2017
Also, is there any roadmap to add OVS support?, it's the current standard on XS7 and seems I'll have to go back to Linux bridge if I want to move to Cloudstack. I'm moving away of a setup where I couldn't send tagged vlan to a guest with regular bridges but OVS did the trick. |
PaulAngus
commented
Jan 29, 2017
Member
@ciroiriarte CloudStack orchestrates XenServers through XAPI - so how VLANs are created is transparent to CloudStack. Are you using Basic or Advanced networks ? Advanced networks are the generally the way to go isolate networks through VLANs. |
ciroiriarte
commented
Jan 29, 2017
Well, I chose Security Groups on the Advanced network configuration options, that makes the bridge firewall configuration fail when you try to add hosts. Unchecked that while adding the XS7 host, it didn't blow up this time. |
syed
commented
Jan 29, 2017
ContributorAuthor
@ciroiriarte As @PaulAngus pointed out, you need to use VLANs as the isolation method if you want to use OVS on XenServer |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
13 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds support for XenServer 7. I have manually done the following tests