I want to remove inactive contributors from vdsm-master-maintainers.
I suggest the simple rule of 2 years of inactivity for removing from this
based on git log.
See the list below for current status:
As you probably know we are now in a mode in which we develop our next
zstream version on the master branch as opposed to how we worked before
where the master version was dedicated for the next major version. This
makes the rapid changes in master to be delivered to customers in a much
higher cadence thus affecting stability.
Due to that we think it's best that from now on merges in the master branch
will be done only by stable branch maintainers after inspecting those
What you need to do in order to get your patch merged:
- Have it pass Jenkins
- Have it get code review +2
- Have it mark verified +1
- It's always encourage to have it tested by OST, for bigger changes it's a
Once you have all those covered, please add me as a reviewer and I'll
examine it and merge if everything seems right, if I haven't done it in a
timely manner feel free to ping me.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen!
I am currently working with the java-sdk and I encountered a problem.
If I would like to retrieve the disk details, I get the following error:
Disk currDisk = ovirtConnection.followLink(diskAttachment.disk());
The Error is occurring in this line:
The getResponst looks quiet ok. (I inspected: [cid:image002.png@01D44537.AF127FD0] and it looks ok).
wrong number of arguments
The code is quiet similar to what you published on github (https://github.com/oVirt/ovirt-engine-sdk-java/blob/master/sdk/src/test/j... ).
Can you confirm the defect?
we would like to ask about interest in community about oVirt moving to CentOS Stream.
There were some requests before but it’s hard to see how many people would really like to see that.
With CentOS releases lagging behind RHEL for months it’s interesting to consider moving to CentOS Stream as it is much more up to date and allows us to fix bugs faster, with less workarounds and overhead for maintaining old code. E.g. our current integration tests do not really pass on CentOS 8.1 and we can’t really do much about that other than wait for more up to date packages. It would also bring us closer to make oVirt run smoothly on RHEL as that is also much closer to Stream than it is to outdated CentOS.
So..would you like us to support CentOS Stream?
We don’t really have capacity to run 3 different platforms, would you still want oVirt to support CentOS Stream if it means “less support” for regular CentOS?
There are some concerns about Stream being a bit less stable, do you share those concerns?
Thank you for your comments,
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 6:33 PM Konstantin Shalygin <k0ste(a)k0ste.ru> wrote:
> Sandro, FYI we are not against cinderlib integration, more than we are upgrade 4.3 to 4.4 due movement to cinderlib.
> But (!) current Managed Storage Block realization support only krbd (kernel RBD) driver - it's also not a option, because kernel client is always lagging behind librbd, and every update\bugfix we should reboot whole host instead simple migration of all VMs and then migrate it back. Also with krbd host will be use kernel page cache, and will not be unmounted if VM will crash (qemu with librbd is one userland process).
There was rbd-nbd support at some point in cinderlib which
addresses your concerns, but it was removed because of some issues
+Gorka, are there any plans to pick it up again?
> So for me current situation look like this:
> 1. We update deprecated OpenStack code? Why, Its for delete?.. Nevermind, just update this code...
> 2. Hmm... auth tests doesn't work, to pass test just disable any OpenStack project_id related things... and... Done...
> 3. I don't care how current cinder + qemu code works, just write new one for linux kernel, it's optimal to use userland apps, just add wrappers (no, it's not);
> 4. Current Cinder integration require zero configuration on oVirt hosts. It's lazy, why oVirt administrator do nothing? just write manual how-to install packages - oVirt administrators love anything except "reinstall" from engine (no, it's not);
> 5. We broke old code. New features is "Cinderlib is a Technology Preview feature only. Technology Preview features are not supported with Red Hat production service level agreements (SLAs), might not be functionally complete, and Red Hat does not recommend to use them for production".
> 6. Oh, we broke old code. Let's deprecate them and close PRODUCTION issues (we didn't see anything).
> And again, we are not hate new cinderlib integration. We just want that new technology don't break all PRODUCTION clustes. Almost two years ago I write on this issue https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539837#c6 about "before deprecate, let's help to migrate". For now I see that oVirt totally will disable QEMU RBD support and want to use kernel RBD module + python os-brick + userland mappers + shell wrappers.
> Thanks, I hope I am writing this for a reason and it will help build bridges between the community and the developers. We have been with oVirt for almost 10 years and now it is a crossroads towards a different virtualization manager.
> So I see only regressions for now, hope we'll found some code owner who can catch this oVirt 4.4 only bugs.
I looked at the bugs and I see you've already identified the problem
and have patches attached, if you can submit the patches and verify
them perhaps we can merge the fixes
I'm facing the problem that after adding disks to guest VM, the device
target path changed (My ovirt version is 4.3). For example:
Before adding a disk:
virsh # domblklist <vmname>
* vdc /dev/mapper/3600a09803830386546244a546d494f55*
After adding a disk, and then shutdown and start the VM:
virsh # domblklist <vmname>
* vdd /dev/mapper/3600a09803830386546244a546d494f55*
The devices' multipath doesn't map to the same target path as before, so in
my VM the /dev/vdc doesn't point to the old
Anybody knows how can I make the device path mapping fixed without being
changed after adding or removing disks.
Many thanks in advance.
we have a nice coincidence now that Vdsm 4.40.40 corresponds to
ovirt-4.4.4 branch. Would we like to use this opportunity to make Vdsm
versions aligned with oVirt 4.4.* versions?
We can tag the next master build, which will be no longer part of
ovirt-4.4.4 branch, as v4.40.50. Or we could tag it as v4.40.500 to be
on the safe side, but both 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 had less than 10 tags on
master, so it's probably not needed and there is always v4.40.591-like
What do you think?