1:53 p.m.
Hi
Please note that 3.6 version support was added to master, default DC/Cluster are created
now with 3.6 and all config changes we applied.
For more information : http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/36518/
Thanks
Eli Mesika
2:08 p.m.
Tried to work with it, and noticed that:
1. The engine doesn't list 4.17 as a supported vdsm version.
2. 4.17 vdsm doesn't report 3.6 as a supported engine version.
This basically means that no host could be operational in a 3.6 cluster,
as to my understanding 4.17 is exactly the version supporting 3.6
functionality.
May I send a fix for (1), or is there any argument against? And who
could take care of (2)?
Yours, Lior.
On 07/01/15 14:53, Eli Mesika wrote:
2:41 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
I had understood deom Oved that this is 4.16 see patch http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/36511/
Oved ???
2:15 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 08:46:09AM -0500, Oved Ourfali wrote:
Yes, there is.
Vdsm would like to declare its support of clusterLevel 3.6 only when it
actually does. This is not yet the case, as we are not yet in 3.6
feature freeze (heck, we're not yet in feature definition).
To test cluster level 3.6 on the master branch, someone has to "lie".
It may be Vdsm (by claiming that it supports 3.6 while it does
not) or Engine (by allowing vdsm 4.17 into cluster 3.6, even though it
does not).
I prefer the latter, as the Engine-side hack is eaiser to undo on a
distributed system. If today's Vdsm claims that it already support 3.6,
future Engines would add it to their cluster, only to find that random
APIs fails. If the hack is Engine-side, it would be gone when 3.6
reaches feature freeze.
Dan.
4:19 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
The logic in the engine is complex and confusing enough, without adding any other
configuration to it, so I prefer to leave it as is.
I don't see why we can't add the cluster levels to the supported VDSM cluster
levels, as we didn't release any official VDSM version yet, so what's the issue
with that?
The fact that engine master has 3.6 cluster level doesn't mean it is supported either.
It will be once 3.6 is released.
4:27 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
this is old discussion... if master work toward a release or version is determine near
release.
there are two policies in our project, one for vdsm - determine versions near release, and
the other is to all other components which is working toward a release.
I believe that working toward a release is a better approach especially when components
are a coupled.
12:31 p.m.
On 14/01/15 17:27, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
The current state, where merged code can't be used, is definitely out of
the question.
Dan - sounds like Oved is against adding this temporary code (and you
can understand why), and that Alon also supports early reporting of
version compatibility. How strongly do you feel about your position?
_______________________________________________
3774
days inactive
3789
days old
13 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Alon Bar-Lev -
Dan Kenigsberg -
Eli Mesika -
Lior Vernia -
Michal Skrivanek -
Oved Ourfali