On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 08:29 +, Mike McClurg wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 01/31/2012 03:11 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 06:22 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >>> + Note that if you wish to use Xen with XCP (Xen Cloud Platform), then
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 03:11 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 06:22 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> + Note that if you wish to use Xen with XCP (Xen Cloud Platform), then using
>>> + xl is mandatory.
>>
>> As I've said before I don't
On 01/31/2012 03:11 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 06:22 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> + Note that if you wish to use Xen with XCP (Xen Cloud Platform), then using
>> + xl is mandatory.
>
> As I've said before I don't think this is correct. The correct value if
> you are using X
On Sun, 2012-01-29 at 06:22 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> + Note that if you wish to use Xen with XCP (Xen Cloud Platform), then using
> + xl is mandatory.
As I've said before I don't think this is correct. The correct value if
you are using XCP is "xapi" or "xe" or however you decide to word it.
On 01/20/2012 04:28 PM, Mike McClurg wrote:
> I can also see that being difficult to implement in a way that won't
> break existing installations on upgrade. Also, it would be nice to
> allow the various toolstacks to coexist on the filesystem, and be able
> to switch in between them without having
On 01/20/2012 04:56 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> Am I wrong here
>> again? :)
>>
>> Can you comment on my grep -v solution?
>
> Why not have a look at one of the undoubtedly many packages which
> already does this?
Attached to this mail is a version that keeps eventual comments an admin
has put in
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Anders Kaseorg wrote:
> If I might make a proposal, I think things would be simpler for everyone if
> we put the separate toolstacks into separate conflicting packages. Then we
> don’t have to deal with /etc/defaults or debconf or user configuration at
> all, and e
On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 03:48 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 01/18/2012 03:20 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > Can't ucf be used for this? (e.g. generate a $TMP, or /var?, version of
> > the file and use ucf to handle the update).
>
> As much as I know, ucf will only ask if the configuration file shou
If I might make a proposal, I think things would be simpler for everyone
if we put the separate toolstacks into separate conflicting packages.
Then we don’t have to deal with /etc/defaults or debconf or user
configuration at all, and each toolstack would know to shut itself down
when it got uninst
On 01/18/2012 03:20 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Can't ucf be used for this? (e.g. generate a $TMP, or /var?, version of
> the file and use ucf to handle the update).
As much as I know, ucf will only ask if the configuration file should be
overwritten or not, and that's not what we want to do here, w
- Original message -
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf
> wrote:
> > Thank you. Documenting it would be good for now.
> >
>
> Agreed. We can mention this on the How-to wiki page. Should this also
> go in the README.Debian?
>
> Mike
Nop, we shall wait until Bastian up
- Original message -
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > If the above isn't done, then there's no way that XCP, or even Xen,
> > will ever work! The only thing that should be disabled is starting
> > xend, all the rest should stay.
> >
>
> What do you mean by "d
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Thank you. Documenting it would be good for now.
>
Agreed. We can mention this on the How-to wiki page. Should this also
go in the README.Debian?
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subj
Thank you. Documenting it would be good for now.
sent fr0m a $martphone, excuse typ0s
On Jan 19, 2012 2:28 PM, "Mike McClurg" wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> On 01/17/2012 02:47 PM, Ritesh Raj Sa
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 01/17/2012 02:47 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
>>> But the problem is, xcp-xapi wants to have xend disabled.
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>> So I disabled the xend init file and then ra
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 01/17/2012 02:47 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
>> But the problem is, xcp-xapi wants to have xend disabled.
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> So I disabled the xend init file and then ran into this problem.
>
> No wonder why then! Nobody ever wrote/said
On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 13:05 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Overwriting the /etc/default/xen file did *NOT* overwrite a local change
> in the *value* stored in the file. It would have only overwrite things
> like comments, but keep the value written in the "TOOLSTACK" variable
> (well, only if it h
On 01/18/2012 06:44 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 05:30 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 01/17/2012 02:47 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
>
>> By the way, I have proposed to have TOOLSTACK to be configured by
>> debconf, but Bastian rejected it because he thinks that I shouldn't b
On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 05:30 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 01/17/2012 02:47 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> By the way, I have proposed to have TOOLSTACK to be configured by
> debconf, but Bastian rejected it because he thinks that I shouldn't be
> rewriting the /etc/default/xen file.
It's not
On 01/17/2012 07:49 AM, Jonathan Ludlam wrote:
> I actually ran into a problem very similar to this myself this morning - it
> came from the fact that the init scripts were reordered at some point, and I
> still had the old init script ordering.
>
> I sorted it temporarily by starting the script
Bastian had some arguments against that approach:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xen-devel/2011-December/003858.html
Jon
Sent from my iPad
On 17 Jan 2012, at 16:42, "Ritesh Raj Sarraf" wrote:
> On 01/17/2012 06:33 PM, Mike McClurg wrote:
>> I think that we put a line in the xcp-
On 01/17/2012 02:47 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> But the problem is, xcp-xapi wants to have xend disabled.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> So I disabled the xend init file and then ran into this problem.
No wonder why then! Nobody ever wrote/said that you should do that. The
xend init.d script does a lot more t
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 22:12 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> On 01/17/2012 06:33 PM, Mike McClurg wrote:
(hrm, I seem not to have received this)
> > I think that we put a line in the xcp-xapi init script that quit
> > without error if it found a xend pid file. This means that to start
> > xapi you
On 01/17/2012 06:33 PM, Mike McClurg wrote:
> I think that we put a line in the xcp-xapi init script that quit
> without error if it found a xend pid file. This means that to start
> xapi you need to either 1) edit /etc/init.d/xend so that xend is never
> actually run, or 2) first let xend start, a
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Jonathan Ludlam
wrote:
> I actually ran into a problem very similar to this myself this morning - it
> came from the fact that the init scripts were reordered at some point, and I
> still had the old init script ordering.
>
> I sorted it temporarily by starting
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> On 01/17/2012 02:26 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Interestingly there's nothing under /proc/xen.
>> The /etc/init.d/xend init script should have mount xenfs for you. Try to
>> restart it by hand, and see if it does it. xenfs and x
On 01/17/2012 02:26 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> >
>> > Interestingly there's nothing under /proc/xen.
> The /etc/init.d/xend init script should have mount xenfs for you. Try to
> restart it by hand, and see if it does it. xenfs and xen-evtchn modules
> are also loaded by this init script. Can you
I actually ran into a problem very similar to this myself this morning - it
came from the fact that the init scripts were reordered at some point, and I
still had the old init script ordering.
I sorted it temporarily by starting the scripts by hand - the normal order is:
20: xcp-fe, xend, xcp-v
On 01/17/2012 12:46 AM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> On 01/13/2012 07:12 AM, Jon Ludlam wrote:
>> That log looks to me like you weren't running on xen - the 'failed to
>> open xenctrl interface' almost always means that - could you please
>> double check?
>
>
> This is the kernel running.
>
> lnx2
On 01/16/2012 10:16 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> dmesg does report successful xen msgs.
>
>
> Is there anything you want me to verify? The machine is up and hasn't
> been rebooted yet.
Attached is the dmesg text. Help that helps.
--
Ritesh Raj Sarraf
RESEARCHUT - http://www.researchut.com
"Nece
On 01/13/2012 07:12 AM, Jon Ludlam wrote:
> That log looks to me like you weren't running on xen - the 'failed to
> open xenctrl interface' almost always means that - could you please
> double check?
This is the kernel running.
lnx200-39:~# uname -a
Linux lnx200-39 3.1.0-1-amd64 #1 SMP Tue Jan 1
That log looks to me like you weren't running on xen - the 'failed to
open xenctrl interface' almost always means that - could you please
double check?
Thanks,
Jon
On 12/01/12 11:51, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> On 01/12/2012 01:36 PM, Mike McClurg wrote:
>> Could you attach the fresh logs from th
On 01/12/2012 01:36 PM, Mike McClurg wrote:
> Could you attach the fresh logs from this environment? There should be
> a few hundred lines of logs in /var/log/xcp-xapi.log coming from
> thread_zero, which is xapi's initialisation bit. Could you attach
> that?
Attached is the log with this email.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Setting up xcp-fe (0.5.2-3) ...
> Setting up xcp-squeezed (1.3-15) ...
> xc: error: Could not obtain handle on privileged command interface (2 =
> No such file or directory): Internal error
> Fatal error: exception Xenctrl.Error("Unable t
On 01/12/2012 12:15 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Sorry, I wiped it out. We should document about uuid and other stuff.
> If there's a web page that talks about them (UUID, Management
> Interface, Current Interface etc), we should mention its link in the
> README.Debian file.
So I had purged the
On 01/12/2012 05:01 AM, Mike McClurg wrote:
> It is likely that the uuid's changed in the upgrade because we didn't
> handle the file renaming well. Do you have both
> /etc/xensource-inventory and /etc/xcp/inventory? The second file is
> the correct location. You may be able to copy the uuid from t
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> This seems to be happening because of this:
>
> # Wait for xapi to write its "init complete" cookie: after here it's
> safe to modify templates.
> wait_for_xapi() {
> MAX_RETRIES=50
> RETRY=0
> while [ ${RETRY} -lt ${MAX_RETRIES
On 01/10/2012 04:26 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi Ritesh,
>
> Thanks for your bug reports. It's really cool to see that there's
> already some people using the XCP packages we worked on since last
> summer, and even more to see that some of them are DDs! :)
>
> I wonder, what is trying to connec
On 01/10/2012 11:24 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Package: xcp-xapi
> Version: 1.3-15
> Severity: normal
>
> My packages were initially installed from the deb repository at
> download.xensource.org.
> Eventually, I upgraded them to the debian repository ones.
>
>
> Right now, xcp-xapi fails to
Package: xcp-xapi
Version: 1.3-15
Severity: normal
My packages were initially installed from the deb repository at
download.xensource.org.
Eventually, I upgraded them to the debian repository ones.
Right now, xcp-xapi fails to start with the following messages.
lnx200-39:~# /etc/init.d/xcp-xa
40 matches
Mail list logo
