Animesh, I put in a patch that makes it double the number of assigned vcpu or 16 whichever is smaller. it is on 4.3-forward
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:33 AM >> To: Harikrishna Patnala >> Cc: Nitin Mehta; cloudstack >> Subject: Re: Review Request 17747: CLOUDSTACK-6023:Non windows >> instances are created on XenServer with a vcpu-max above supported >> xenserver limits >> >> we have hosts with 80 vms. 80*16 > 160 , which is spedcified in the xenserver >> docs Joris came up with. That last part is not important to me but I am still >> worried about the size of the statistics post by the members to the pool- >> master. If we can make sure we don't cross this boundary I am fine with not >> making it optional. So to stress my point: even with a documented limit of >> 16 per vm there is also a limit of 160 per host. And the real limit is >> neither as >> we can instantiate vms with 32 vcpu (even on >> 6.0.2 i think Joris?) the actual problem is in the internal xapi traffic. >> > [Animesh] xapi traffic issues need to be addressed by xen and outside of > cloudstack. From xen doc the vCPU per host is 4000 not 160 (which is logical > processor/host). For 4.3 does it make sense to keep the value lower to like 8 > to reduce chances of overloading xapi. For 4.4 this can be reworked to a > configurable or computed value bases on different limits >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Harikrishna Patnala < >> harikrishna.patn...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/17747/ >> > >> > On February 6th, 2014, 8:41 a.m. UTC, *daan Hoogland* wrote: >> > >> > Harikrishna, I would like to see the intermediate option of scale up to >> double the amount as well. Did you revert it? Is there a problem with this >> approach? >> > >> > Otherwise your submission is fine, of course. >> > >> > Hi Daan, >> > I did not revert any changes. We can put an option to scale upto double >> but why it is required if vm can go till 16 (if at all 16 is the correct >> limit). >> > >> > >> > >> > - Harikrishna >> > >> > On February 5th, 2014, 5:19 p.m. UTC, Harikrishna Patnala wrote: >> > Review request for cloudstack and Nitin Mehta. >> > By Harikrishna Patnala. >> > >> > *Updated Feb. 5, 2014, 5:19 p.m.* >> > *Bugs: * >> > CLOUDSTACK-6023<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK- >> 6023> >> > *Repository: * cloudstack-git >> > Description >> > >> > CLOUDSTACK-6023:Non windows instances are created on XenServer with a >> > vcpu-max above supported xenserver limits >> > >> > VCPUs-max value is changed to 16 and only when dynamic scaling is >> enabled. >> > >> > Diffs >> > >> > - >> plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixReso >> urceBase.java >> > (bf9b068) >> > >> > View Diff <https://reviews.apache.org/r/17747/diff/> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Daan -- Daan
