Here is the commit id on 4.3-forward commit 95e41fdf0da50c165a9317847058fce4efeddbcf
-Harikrishna ________________________________________ From: Nitin Mehta Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 2:46 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Harikrishna Patnala; Anthony Xu Subject: Re: Review Request 17747: CLOUDSTACK-6023:Non windows instances are created on XenServer with a vcpu-max above supported xenserver limits Animesh - done. Please cherry pick to 4.3 Daan - for pushing this to master I will have to revert your fix in master. On 07/02/14 11:48 AM, "Animesh Chaturvedi" <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >Can I have the patch applied in 4.3-forward? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Nitin Mehta [mailto:nitin.me...@citrix.com] >> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 11:33 AM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Cc: Harikrishna Patnala; Anthony Xu >> Subject: Re: Review Request 17747: CLOUDSTACK-6023:Non windows >> instances are created on XenServer with a vcpu-max above supported >> xenserver limits >> >> Hey Daan, >> I guess you are talking about your fix submitted in master [1]. >> You might want to see Hari's latest patch [2] as well. It solves the >>following >> two things which I guess your fix misses. >> >> 1. It sets the vcpu max to a hardcoded value (say 16) only when dynamic >> scaling is enabled. Do note that by default dynamic scaling is disabled. >> This is an important fix bcz only those who need dynamic scaling get >> impacted. >> 2. It has made the vcpu max configurable at cluster level which makes it >> flexible for the admin to customize it depending on the load in his/her >> cluster.(I guess even you guys mentioned keeping it configurable) In >>case >> there are issues with keeping it at 16, there is a flexibility to >>change it to a >> lower value during runtime. >> >> Let me know if you have any concerns. >> >> >> [1] >> >>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f=plu >>gi >> ns/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceB >> ase >> .java;h=cf5c6d6c7623e682e6c5bd66d829351b2bf6ad49;hp=200a72ff219d5214 >> ba3ebfc >> 2c198517e849e03a9;hb=0839fbc;hpb=b3829e54d6b7af426f797ffb9fa54b4cd2 >> abffc0 >> >> [2] https://reviews.apache.org/r/17747/ >> >> Thanks, >> -Nitin >> >> On 06/02/14 10:10 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >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/CitrixR >> >>>eso >> >>> urceBase.java >> >>> > (bf9b068) >> >>> > >> >>> > View Diff <https://reviews.apache.org/r/17747/diff/> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Daan >> > >> > >> > >> >-- >> >Daan >
