As per the new design following would be done.
(a) any ISO-derived disk can be extracted
(b) there will be a global config to disable extraction of ISO based volumes.
That way people concerned about (a) can just use (b) to fix it.
Reviewed by : Kishan.
status 11811: resolved fixed
Changes:
- Added a two new deployment planners 'UserDispersingPlanner' and 'UserConcentratedPodPlanner' to the DeploymentPlanners
- Planner can be chosen by setting the global config variable 'vm.allocation.algorithm' to either of the following values:
('random', 'firstfit', 'userdispersing', 'userconcentratedpod')
- By default, the value is 'random'. When the value is 'random', FirstFitPlanner is invoked as before that shuffles the resource lists.
- Now Admin can choose whether the deployment heuristic should be applied starting at cluster or pod level. This can be done by using the
global config variable 'apply.allocation.algorithm.to.pods' which is false by default. Thus by default as earlier, planner starts at clusters directly.
'UserConcentratedPodPlanner' changes:
- Earlier to 3.0, FirstFitPlanner used to reorder the clusters in case this heuristic was chosen.
- Now this is done by a separate planner and is applied only when 'vm.allocation.algorithm' is set to this planner
- It reorders the capacity based clusters/pods such that those pods having more number of Running Vms for the given account are tried first.
- Note that this userconcentration is applied only to pods and clusters. Not to hosts or storagepools within a cluster.
'UserDispersingPlanner' changes:
- 'UserDispersingPlanner' reorders the capacity ordered pods and clusters based on number of 'Running' VMs for the given account in ascending order. Aim is to choose thodes pods/clusters first which have less number of Running VMs for the given account
- Admin can provide weights to capacity and user dispersion so that both parameters get considered in reordering the pods/clusters. This can be done by setting
the global config parameter 'vm.user.dispersion.weight'. Default value is 1. Thus if this planner is chosen, by default, ordering will be done only by number of Running Vms, unless the weight is changed.
- HostAlllocators and StoragePoolAllocators also reorder the hosts and pools by ascending order of number of Running VMS/ Ready Volumes respectively for the given account. Thus try to choose that host or pool within a cluster with less number of VMs for the account.
-made Netscaler, SRX, F5 network elements as pluggable service
-added abstract load balancer device manager ExternaLoadBalancerDeviceManager
-made both F5 and Netscaler pluggable service to extend ExternaLoadBalancerDeviceManager
-added abstract firewall device manager ExternalFirewallDeviceManager
-made SRX pluugable service to extende ExternalFirewallDeviceManager
-added API's to configure and manage netscaler devices
status 11938: resolved fixed
reviewed-by: Frank Zhang
This fix would cover following scenario:
* the customer is upgrading from 2.2.11 to 2.2.13.
* the incorrect indexes are being dropped as a part of 2.2.12 to 2.2.13 upgarde, but we still insert them as a part of 2.2.11 to 2.2.12, and it might lead to the db upgrade failure. The only one way to handle this case - remove them from 2.2.11 to 2.2.12 upgrade path
only owner of the network can access it; if it's domain - all accounts in the domain and domain children can have an access.
* aclType replaces 2 old fields: isShared and isDomainSpecific.
* All 2.2.x account specific networks will have aclType=Account; 2.2.x Domain specific networks - aclType=domain; 2.2.x Zone level networks - aclType=Domain with domainId = Root domain id
