This 
http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsphere5/r51/vsphere-51-configuration-maximums.pdf 
mentions that the max. can be 32 for ESX 5.1. Any specific reason to make it 
16? Also it needs to be seen that this limit works across all supported ESX 
versions.

-Koushik

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelven Yang [mailto:kelven.y...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:24 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> 
> 8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for linked-
> clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post to reduce 
> possible
> runtime problems.
> 
> We have a default setup about this limitation in Config.java, the last section
> (shown as "1-8") gives a validation range, any change from UI will go through
> our java validator, so it may prevent you from changing to any number that is
> greater than 8.
> 
> VmwarePerClusterHostMax("Advanced", ManagementServer.class,
> Integer.class, "vmware.percluster.host.max", "8", "maxmium hosts per
> vCenter cluster(do not let it grow over 8)", "1-8"),
> 
> 
> 
> If you are running vCenter/ESX 5.1 and up, you are safe to increase cluster
> size to 16, to workaround the hard-coded 1-8 range in java validator, you may
> directly make a change in database.
> 
> I think raising cluster size limit will be addressed soon in upcoming 
> CloudStack
> releases.
> 
> Kelven
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/19/12 4:27 PM, "Will Chan" <will.c...@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> >Has someone proven you can't change the global setting and not get past
> >8 host?  I could've sworn this was possible.
> >
> >Will
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mice Xia [mailto:weiran.x...@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:47 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems more like a bug, iirc you cant set the global config VMware
> >>cluster  size limit more than 8. IMO we only need to change this magic
> >>number to  16.
> >>
> >> And if 4.0.x will exist for some time, let's say, 8 months, it's
> >>worthwhile  merging it back. If it will EOS soon, I agree with you
> >>target this kind of fix in  4.1.0.
> >>
> >> Mice
> >>
> >> 在 2012-12-20,7:25,David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> 写道:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Mice Xia <weiran.x...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> +1
> >> >>
> >> >> I propose merge this back to 4.0.x
> >> >>
> >> >> Mice
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > That's a new feature, so probably should wait til 4.1.0
> >> >
> >> > --David

Reply via email to