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 limi
rafaelweingartner closed pull request #19: updated jasypt version for change db
password
URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/pull/19
This is a PR merged from a forked repository.
As GitHub hides the original diff on merge, it is displayed below for
the sake of provenan
Do we need these logical constraints in ACS at all?
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 6:57 AM Wido den Hollander 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 se
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 O
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
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
On 11/9/18 1:08 PM, Rafael Weingärtner wrote:
> 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
People, I know this is not a sexy subject but it needs attention. There is
a PR [1] out for preparational work on upgrading antiquated logging
frameworks. It needs attention if only :+1: or an argument not to do it.
Several other similar jobs need doing as well. I wasn't in Montreal so i
don't know
Thanks Wido - though I don't seem to be able to find any related setting
(there is host.overcommit.mem.mb but that is not it - unless you can define
negative value to it ) ?
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/master/agent/conf/agent.properties
thx
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 13:03, Wido den Ho
On 11/9/18 1:33 PM, Andrija Panic wrote:
> Thanks Wido - though I don't seem to be able to find any related setting
> (there is host.overcommit.mem.mb but that is not it - unless you can
> define negative value to it ) ?
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/master/agent/conf/agent.proper
THx Wido, let me add this to agent.properties template on master, since
it's missing, I have no idea where you got it from (perhaps from code that
uses it)
thx
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 13:35, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>
>
> On 11/9/18 1:33 PM, Andrija Panic wrote:
> > Thanks Wido - though I do
Please LGTM if OK... https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/3016
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 14:20, Andrija Panic wrote:
> THx Wido, let me add this to agent.properties template on master, since
> it's missing, I have no idea where you got it from (perhaps from code that
> uses it)
>
> thx
>
>
Hello Boris,
During the troubleshooting, I have found that the problem is connected with
my host environment, so I decided to build the Dockerfile which is for
"simulator & client" running altogether.
The Dockerfile itself is, for example, is here:
https://pastebin.com/raw/ZVjtHX7F
The Dockerfile
13 matches
Mail list logo
