20090929.2 UEC install test
kirkland at canonical.com
Thu Oct 1 15:45:40 BST 2009
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Thierry Carrez
<thierry.carrez at canonical.com> wrote:
> Note that by rebooting after first successful registration, you work
> around bug 439251. Eucalyptus probably still needs to be restarted after
> first successful registration of components to be usable. Note that it
> never needs to be restarted after that, it's just that it ignores
> components that were just registered, until the next restart.
> This is a little tricky to solve, since we register again on restart. We
> probably need to implement some logic to *not* try re-registering if its
> already registered... and/or fix it in upstream code.
I think Dan said that he has a fix for this in the upstream code? If
so, we should definitely cherry pick that as soon as beta freeze
> Yes, it's a very lengthy process, one of the reasons why I didn't
> consider a late ISO respin to be a viable option, especially while I was
> the only one to test the UEC-from-CD install. It's good that you are in
> this capacity as well now.
Right. I need to improve my setup, but I do have a cloud now.
> I can run the beta candidate just fine. Maybe you should submit this
> issue as a separate bug ?
I'm downloading/testing the beta candidate now. I was working with a
jaunty daily build. Should I file bugs against jaunty daily builds,
or are those unsupported?
> There are two possibilities here.
> 1/ There was a test glitch in my environment. Testing full installs with
> ISOs containing -ubuntu13 should confirm that.
> 2/ There is an issue introduced by the install-from-CD process that you
> don't get by installing packages over a running system (or upgrading).
> Testing full installs with ISOs containing -ubuntu13 should confirm that.
> In both cases we need a daily ISO to test. But we need several testers
> and the test takes a long time. We cannot afford to screw up the beta
> release for that test.
Right, understood. It could very well be either of those. It takes
hours to get to the point at which we're encountering (or not
encountering) this bug. It's very easy to sneeze and do something
very minutely different, and cause different results. I feel your
> I'm going to confirm that installing the beta with -0ubuntu12 and
> upgrading to -0ubuntu13 doesn't screw up *anything*. If that's the case,
> then yes, I think we should *not* revert the -0ubuntu13 upload. It is
> one step closer to the autoregistration grail. Then starting Friday
> we'll get an ISO with -0ubuntu13 on it to check the remaining issues, if
My testing confirms that upgrading to 0ubuntu13 doesn't screw up anything.
> Note that I'm pretty sure bug 439251 isn't solved at that point, so even
> supposing an ISO with -0ubuntu13 would work everywhere, we still have a
> manual step to complete registration. So we can't reach the beta target
> of automatic configuration anyway.
That's certainly *less* manual that doing euca_conf --register-blah 3
times and *then* restarting the front end. For this reason, I think
we're moving in the right direction with -0ubuntu13.
More information about the ubuntu-devel