For me, that seems some restrictions in paid productions. “you are client type X, then you can start only Y VMs”, and this has been a legacy around our code base. We could very much remove this limit (on instance numbers); I expect operators to know what they are doing, and to monitor closely the platforms/systems they run. The management of other resources such as RAM, CPU, and others, I still consider them necessary though.
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 10:03 AM Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote: > > > On 11/9/18 12:56 PM, Andrija Panic wrote: > > afaik not - but I did run once or twice intom perhaps looselym connected > > issue - ACS reports 100% of host RAM (makes sense) asavailable for VM > > deployment to ACS - so in 1-2 cases I did run into out of memory killer, > > crashing my VMs. > > > > It would be great to have some amount of "reserve RAM" for host OS - or > > simply have PER HOST RAM disableTreshold setting, similar to cluster > level > > "cluster.memory.allocated.capacity.disablethreshold", just on host > level... > > > > > You can do that already, in agent.properties you can set reserved memory. > > But I doubt indeed that we need such a limit in ACS at all, why do we > need to limit the amount of Instances on a hypervisor? > > Or at least set it to a very high number by default. > > Wido > > > On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 12:03, Rafael Weingärtner < > rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Do we need these logical constraints in ACS at all? > >> > >> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 6:57 AM Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> > wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 11/8/18 11:20 PM, Simon Weller wrote: > >>>> I think these is legacy and a guess back in the day. It was 50 at one > >>> point and it was lifted higher a few releases. ago. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I see. I'm about to do a test with a bunch of 128GB hypervisors and > >>> spawning a lot of 128M VMs. Trying to see where the limit might be and > >>> also stress the VR a bit by loading a lot of DHCP entries. > >>> > >>> Wido > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> From: Ivan Kudryavtsev <kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 3:58 PM > >>>> To: dev > >>>> Subject: Re: KVM Max Guests Limit > >>>> > >>>> Hi all, +1 for higher numbers. > >>>> > >>>> чт, 8 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:32, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl>: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> I see that for KVM we set the limit to 144 guests by default, can > >>>>> anybody tell me why we have this limit set to 144? > >>>>> > >>>>> Searching a bit I found this: > >>>>> https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-kvm-limits > >>>>> > >>>>> "This guest limit does not apply to Red Hat Enterprise Linux with > >>>>> Unlimited Guests. There is no guest limit for Red Hat Enterprise > >>>>> Virtualization" > >>>>> > >>>>> There is always a limit somewhere, but why do we set it to 144? > >>>>> > >>>>> I would personally vote for increasing this to 500 or something so > >> that > >>>>> users don't run into it that easily. > >>>>> > >>>>> Also, the log line is printed in DEBUG mode only when a host reaches > >>>>> this limit, so I created a PR to set this to INFO: > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/3013 > >>>>> > >>>>> Any input? > >>>>> > >>>>> Wido > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev > >>>> Bitworks LLC > >>>> Cell RU: +7-923-414-1515 > >>>> Cell USA: +1-201-257-1512 > >>>> WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Rafael Weingärtner > >> > > > > > -- Rafael Weingärtner
