+1 on making linked clones optional ________________________________________ From: Tamas Monos [tam...@veber.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:01 PM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Sorry for the side-track for a moment but just another reason to get rid of linked-in clone template management on vmware in the long-run. I still do not believe using linked-in clones is actually beneficial taking into account it drawbacks: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-529 Regards Tamas Monos DDI +44(0)2034687012 Chief Technical Office +44(0)2034687000 Veber: The Hosting Specialists Fax +44(0)871 522 7057 http://www.veber.co.uk Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/veberhost Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/veberhost -----Original Message----- From: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@citrix.com] Sent: 20 December 2012 16:50 To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware Kelven offered a reason earlier. "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." It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack. --Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Koushik Das > > <koushik....@citrix.com> > wrote: > >> 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 > >> > > > > Yes - the different versions having different limits complicates things a > > bit. > > 5.1 = 32, 5.0 = 16 4.x = 8? > > > > --David > > > > 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using a > more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just curious, > but are there more specific reasons that we are talking about 4.x > having a lower number? > > http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsphere4/r40/vsp_40_config_max.pdf > http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsphere5/r50/vsphere-50-configuration- > maximums.pdf > http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsphere5/r51/vsphere-51-configuration- > maximums.pdf > > -chip
