You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com> on 2013/02/06 05:02:29 UTC
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Koushik,
If you have not yet updated the progress of this 4.1 feature in jira,
please do.
-abhi
On 27/01/13 3:44 PM, "Koushik Das" <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
>See inline. Refer to the code changes @ https://reviews.apache.org/r/9041/
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Prashant Kumar Mishra [mailto:prashantkumar.mishra@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:56 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Hi,
>> I am planning to take the QA job for this feature. Have reviewed the
>> functional spec(not much details are present), went through community
>> discussion and have the following questions.
>>
>> 1-Do we support mixed (heterogeneous) cluster for vmware in CS?
>> it seems VMWare support mixed cluster, please correct me if I
>>am wrong
>> a-" http://communities.vmware.com/message/2008030"
>> b-"
>>http://blogs.vmware.com/vsphere/2011/10/mixing-esxesxi-versions-
>> in-an-hadrs-cluster.html"
>
>No
>
>> 2-Are We going to change Global config VMware cluster size limit to 16?
>
>This is removed
>
>> 3- Apart from configuration and hypervisor_capabilities table are
>>there any
>> other table going to be modified ?
>
>Only hypervisor_capabilities table is modified
>
>> 4-In hypervisor _capabilities table what is dummy value we are going to
>>put
>> for other hypervisor type , is it -1 ?
>
>Default is null
>
>> 5-Any API changes ?
>
>No
>
>> 6-Upgrade path ?
>
>Not affected
>
>> 7-option of adding host through backdoor(adding host separately to
>>cluster,
>> even cluster size > 8 host) is still available ?
>
>No. Looking at the code doesn't look like the backdoor was available
>earlier as well.
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Prashant Kumar Mishra
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:56 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> There can be multiple dimensions based on which the size can vary but it
>> cannot go beyond the max. value (32).
>>
>> I am referring to the following docs:
>> 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
>>
>> -Koushik
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:43 PM
>> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>> >
>> > Hi Koushik,
>> >
>> > I have a question/concern -
>> >
>> > The "limitations" are multi-dimensional - for example, vSphere 5.0
>> > clusters hosting linked clone pools are limited to 8 ESXi hosts when
>> > using VMFS datastores and 32 ESXi hosts when using only NFS
>> > datastores. In 5.1, they made both 32 hosts. I think 4.0 had a
>>different set
>> of values.
>> >
>> > In other words, the host limits are hypervisor type, hypervisor
>> > version, storage technology etc. i.e. we cant set the hard limit as 32
>> > as 5.0 did not support it for VMFS..
>> >
>> > Hari
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 10:30 PM
>> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>> >
>> > To clarify some more.
>> >
>> > What I have suggested is to have a max. hosts per cluster limit based
>> > on specific HV version. For e.g. for Vmware
>> >
>> > Version 4.0 will have a max. limit of X (i.e. in any CS Vmware 4.0
>> > cluster, the max. number of hosts that can be added is X) Version 4.1
>>will
>> have a max.
>> > limit of Y Version 5.0 will have a max. limit of Z
>> >
>> > Based on the vmware specification X, Y, Z are all 32. As part of best
>> > practices (in documentation) all the limitations discussed as to why
>> > the limit was set to
>> > 8 earlier can be mentioned. The idea is that CS shouldn't impose any
>> > artificial restrictions and rely only on HV specifications to the
>>extent
>> possible.
>> >
>> > For any new supported version another entry can be added to the
>> > hypervisor_capabilities table.
>> >
>> > As Alex mentioned, the admin is free to decide on the number of hosts
>> > that needs to be added in a cluster as long as the hard max. limits
>> > are not exceeded.
>> >
>> > -Koushik
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 11:45 PM
>> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>> > >
>> > > See inline
>> > >
>> > > -Koushik
>> > >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
>> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 11:24 PM
>> > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>> > > >
>> > > > Koushik,
>> > > >
>> > > > I believe what you pointed out there is the maximum limit for the
>> > > hypervisor.
>> > >
>> > > Yes. Maximum based on the HV version.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Hari,
>> > > >
>> > > > What's the point of the admin setting these values? Afterall,
>> > > > he's the one who's adding hosts himself? If he wants more, why
>> > > > should cs stop
>> > > him?
>> > > >
>> > > > --Alex
>> > > >
>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:44 AM
>> > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Hi Koushik,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Can you please elaborate
>> > > > >
>> > > > > a) how the admin gets to set this value?
>> > >
>> > > Why should the admin be allowed to change these values? These are
>> > > the max. limit supported by the specific HV based on the version.
>> > >
>> > > > > b) is this value set on a per cluster basis? If so, what is the
>> > > > > default
>> > value?
>> > >
>> > > It's not per cluster.
>> > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Hari
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
>> > > > > Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 4:57 AM
>> > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Didn't see any feedback, so am assuming that the approach seems
>> > > > > reasonable. I will go ahead and start with the implementation.
>> > > > > Not planning to write a FS as this is a small feature and the
>> > > > > below mail
>> > > > summarizes it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Koushik
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
>> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 5:26 PM
>> > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
>> > > > > > VMware
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > So based on the discussions would it be fair to conclude that
>> > > > > > this should be handled by adding some column like
>> > 'max_host_per_cluster'
>> > > > > > in hypervisor_capabilities table. Currently the following
>> > > > > > version entries are present for Vmware. For each version an
>> > > > > > appropriate value can be associated based on the
>> > > > > > limitations/actual
>> > supported.
>> > > > > > For other HVs where this setting is not applicable some dummy
>> > > > > > value, say (-1) can be
>> > > > > entered.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > hv_type hv_version
>> > > > > > VMware default
>> > > > > > VMware 4.0
>> > > > > > VMware 4.1
>> > > > > > VMware 5.0
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Let me know if there is a consensus on this.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > Koushik
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
>> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:08 PM
>> > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
>> > > > > > > VMware
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > +1
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > The more we move these types of things out of configuration
>> > > > > > > and into component specific references the better.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --Alex
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > > > From: Tamas Monos [mailto:tamasm@veber.co.uk]
>> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:10 AM
>> > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
>> > > > > > > > VMware
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I'd recommend removing any hard limits from CS and
>> > > > > > > > introduce a variable like "max.guest.limit" on the
>> > > > > > > > Hypervisor Capabilities
>> > page.
>> > > > > > > > This value could default to 8, but should the admin decide
>> > > > > > > > otherwise could be set to anything.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > 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: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
>> > > > > > > > Sent: 20 December 2012 15:25
>> > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
>> > > > > > > > VMware
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Koushik Das
>> > > > > > > > <ko...@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
>> > > > > > > >
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 10:16:33AM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> +1. I feel we should do right by these submissions.
>
If there are specific submissions that you want to propose for
inclusion, please do. As I said in my reply to Koushik, anyone can
propose anything. Concensus is what will matter.
With my RM hat on, I'm trying to keep the process going, based on the
latest community consensus of what our process should be. I don't have
a particular interest or disinterest in any of the features sitting in
reviewboard right now, so I'd expect those that do to speak up.
> On a related note, should we have sub-milestones for the 4.2 release so
> that we don't have a stampede of feature merges at feature freeze?
I sort of replied to this point in my last email, but I'll do it again
here.
Yes, I think it would be helpful. But the most important thing for a
contributor to do, is to work to get concensus on their change and
support for a review and commit of that patch.
Committers, especially those that could be (and have been) called
maintainers of certain areas of the code, should also be more responsive
to review requests.
Whomever does the RM for 4.2.0 should try to lay out some reasonable
milestones that help inform people's expectations around timing.
-chip
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 11:38:37PM +0530, Koushik Das wrote:
> Chip,
>
> I get your point. But what this essentially means is that the effective cut-off date for all non-committers is at least a week (assumption is there will be 2-3 iterations each taking 2 days and committers themselves will be busy) before the actual one. Either this needs to be clearly communicated for future releases OR another option is to let selective patches in based on state of the code and consensus in the community.
>
> -Koushik
Yes, that's essentially what it means to me too, but we had plenty of
reviews that were posted more than a week before the feature freeze that
nobody bothered to review. So having a date is useful, but getting
concensus and support to get a patch reviewed and committed is much more
important in practical terms.
BTW - we always have the option of doing anything we want with community
concensus. If anyone feels strongly about including specific patches
from reviewboard in 4.1, you are absolutely free to propose that!
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
+1. I feel we should do right by these submissions.
On a related note, should we have sub-milestones for the 4.2 release so
that we don't have a stampede of feature merges at feature freeze?
On 2/6/13 10:08 AM, "Koushik Das" <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
>Chip,
>
>I get your point. But what this essentially means is that the effective
>cut-off date for all non-committers is at least a week (assumption is
>there will be 2-3 iterations each taking 2 days and committers themselves
>will be busy) before the actual one. Either this needs to be clearly
>communicated for future releases OR another option is to let selective
>patches in based on state of the code and consensus in the community.
>
>-Koushik
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:30 PM
>> To: Alex Huang
>> Cc: Abhinandan Prateek; Koushik Das; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:49:39AM -0800, Alex Huang wrote:
>> > I've cced Chip in case he knows this was decided already.
>> >
>> > To me reviewboard not being committed to 4.1 is a problem with the
>> community following up on patches and not with the original submit of
>>the
>> patch. The submitter obviously submitted the patch in time (some has
>>been
>> there for a long time) so should we make it an exception for review
>>board
>> submits that made it in time to make it into the release?
>> >
>> > If not, then next release we should set a deadline for review board
>>patches
>> earlier than feature freeze deadline.
>> >
>> > --Alex
>>
>> We didn't decide this yet, but IMO it's an unfortunate but necessary
>>situation
>> for us to not include this feature in 4.1.
>>
>> We really need to get much better about being responsive to reviewboard
>> submissions. That being said, I still believe that the freeze is
>>against the state
>> of master.
>>
>> As an example, there were several ongoing discussions around different
>> features that lead to the patches not making it into the release in time
>> already. The reason that we want to have a cutoff date is to make sure
>>that
>> we have a chance of actually testing and stabilizing on a reasonable
>>schedule.
>>
>> The best advice I have for us, is that feature submissions need to
>>happen as
>> soon as possible, so that reviews can commence and issues can be sorted
>> out. Incrementally showing progress and getting reviews from the
>> community should happen throughout the feature dev process.
>>
>> Don't forget the reason for time-based releases is that features can
>>simply
>> be in the *next release*.
>>
>> Lots of things need to improve, but my (unfortunate perhaps) vote is
>>that
>> freeze means just that. We froze features for the release branch based
>>on
>> what was actually in master.
>>
>> -chip
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com>.
Chip,
I get your point. But what this essentially means is that the effective cut-off date for all non-committers is at least a week (assumption is there will be 2-3 iterations each taking 2 days and committers themselves will be busy) before the actual one. Either this needs to be clearly communicated for future releases OR another option is to let selective patches in based on state of the code and consensus in the community.
-Koushik
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:30 PM
> To: Alex Huang
> Cc: Abhinandan Prateek; Koushik Das; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:49:39AM -0800, Alex Huang wrote:
> > I've cced Chip in case he knows this was decided already.
> >
> > To me reviewboard not being committed to 4.1 is a problem with the
> community following up on patches and not with the original submit of the
> patch. The submitter obviously submitted the patch in time (some has been
> there for a long time) so should we make it an exception for review board
> submits that made it in time to make it into the release?
> >
> > If not, then next release we should set a deadline for review board patches
> earlier than feature freeze deadline.
> >
> > --Alex
>
> We didn't decide this yet, but IMO it's an unfortunate but necessary situation
> for us to not include this feature in 4.1.
>
> We really need to get much better about being responsive to reviewboard
> submissions. That being said, I still believe that the freeze is against the state
> of master.
>
> As an example, there were several ongoing discussions around different
> features that lead to the patches not making it into the release in time
> already. The reason that we want to have a cutoff date is to make sure that
> we have a chance of actually testing and stabilizing on a reasonable schedule.
>
> The best advice I have for us, is that feature submissions need to happen as
> soon as possible, so that reviews can commence and issues can be sorted
> out. Incrementally showing progress and getting reviews from the
> community should happen throughout the feature dev process.
>
> Don't forget the reason for time-based releases is that features can simply
> be in the *next release*.
>
> Lots of things need to improve, but my (unfortunate perhaps) vote is that
> freeze means just that. We froze features for the release branch based on
> what was actually in master.
>
> -chip
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:49:39AM -0800, Alex Huang wrote:
> I've cced Chip in case he knows this was decided already.
>
> To me reviewboard not being committed to 4.1 is a problem with the community following up on patches and not with the original submit of the patch. The submitter obviously submitted the patch in time (some has been there for a long time) so should we make it an exception for review board submits that made it in time to make it into the release?
>
> If not, then next release we should set a deadline for review board patches earlier than feature freeze deadline.
>
> --Alex
We didn't decide this yet, but IMO it's an unfortunate but necessary
situation for us to not include this feature in 4.1.
We really need to get much better about being responsive to reviewboard
submissions. That being said, I still believe that the freeze is against
the state of master.
As an example, there were several ongoing discussions around different
features that lead to the patches not making it into the release in time
already. The reason that we want to have a cutoff date is to make sure
that we have a chance of actually testing and stabilizing on a reasonable
schedule.
The best advice I have for us, is that feature submissions need to
happen as soon as possible, so that reviews can commence and issues can
be sorted out. Incrementally showing progress and getting reviews from
the community should happen throughout the feature dev process.
Don't forget the reason for time-based releases is that features can
simply be in the *next release*.
Lots of things need to improve, but my (unfortunate perhaps) vote is
that freeze means just that. We froze features for the release branch
based on what was actually in master.
-chip
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.
I've cced Chip in case he knows this was decided already.
To me reviewboard not being committed to 4.1 is a problem with the community following up on patches and not with the original submit of the patch. The submitter obviously submitted the patch in time (some has been there for a long time) so should we make it an exception for review board submits that made it in time to make it into the release?
If not, then next release we should set a deadline for review board patches earlier than feature freeze deadline.
--Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:Abhinandan.Prateek@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:11 PM
> To: Koushik Das; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> The feature that did not make it to master before 1/31 is now going to be
> part of 4.2.
> So move your feature ticket and related documents to 4.2.
>
> -abhi
>
>
> On 06/02/13 10:56 AM, "Koushik Das" <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> >The changes are in review board. I will wait for some more time and if
> >there is no feedback will rebase and merge to master/4.1.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Abhinandan Prateek
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:32 AM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Cc: Koushik Das
> >> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >>
> >> Koushik,
> >> If you have not yet updated the progress of this 4.1 feature in
> >>jira, please
> >> do.
> >>
> >> -abhi
> >>
> >> On 27/01/13 3:44 PM, "Koushik Das" <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >See inline. Refer to the code changes @
> >> >https://reviews.apache.org/r/9041/
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Prashant Kumar Mishra
> [mailto:prashantkumar.mishra@citrix.com]
> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:56 PM
> >> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> I am planning to take the QA job for this feature. Have reviewed the
> >> >> functional spec(not much details are present), went through
> community
> >> >> discussion and have the following questions.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1-Do we support mixed (heterogeneous) cluster for vmware in CS?
> >> >> it seems VMWare support mixed cluster, please correct me if
> >> >>I am wrong
> >> >> a-" http://communities.vmware.com/message/2008030"
> >> >> b-"
> >> >>http://blogs.vmware.com/vsphere/2011/10/mixing-esxesxi-versions-
> >> >> in-an-hadrs-cluster.html"
> >> >
> >> >No
> >> >
> >> >> 2-Are We going to change Global config VMware cluster size limit to
> >>16?
> >> >
> >> >This is removed
> >> >
> >> >> 3- Apart from configuration and hypervisor_capabilities table are
> >> >>there any other table going to be modified ?
> >> >
> >> >Only hypervisor_capabilities table is modified
> >> >
> >> >> 4-In hypervisor _capabilities table what is dummy value we are going
> >> >>to put for other hypervisor type , is it -1 ?
> >> >
> >> >Default is null
> >> >
> >> >> 5-Any API changes ?
> >> >
> >> >No
> >> >
> >> >> 6-Upgrade path ?
> >> >
> >> >Not affected
> >> >
> >> >> 7-option of adding host through backdoor(adding host separately to
> >> >>cluster, even cluster size > 8 host) is still available ?
> >> >
> >> >No. Looking at the code doesn't look like the backdoor was available
> >> >earlier as well.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks
> >> >> Prashant Kumar Mishra
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
> >> >> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:56 PM
> >> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >> >>
> >> >> There can be multiple dimensions based on which the size can vary but
> >> >> it cannot go beyond the max. value (32).
> >> >>
> >> >> I am referring to the following docs:
> >> >> 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
> >> >>
> >> >> -Koushik
> >> >>
> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
> >> >> > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:43 PM
> >> >> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi Koushik,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have a question/concern -
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The "limitations" are multi-dimensional - for example, vSphere 5.0
> >> >> > clusters hosting linked clone pools are limited to 8 ESXi hosts
> >> >> > when using VMFS datastores and 32 ESXi hosts when using only NFS
> >> >> > datastores. In 5.1, they made both 32 hosts. I think 4.0 had a
> >> >>different set
> >> >> of values.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In other words, the host limits are hypervisor type, hypervisor
> >> >> > version, storage technology etc. i.e. we cant set the hard limit as
> >> >> > 32 as 5.0 did not support it for VMFS..
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hari
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
> >> >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 10:30 PM
> >> >> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >> >> >
> >> >> > To clarify some more.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What I have suggested is to have a max. hosts per cluster limit
> >> >> > based on specific HV version. For e.g. for Vmware
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Version 4.0 will have a max. limit of X (i.e. in any CS Vmware 4.0
> >> >> > cluster, the max. number of hosts that can be added is X) Version
> >> >> > 4.1
> >> >>will
> >> >> have a max.
> >> >> > limit of Y Version 5.0 will have a max. limit of Z
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Based on the vmware specification X, Y, Z are all 32. As part of
> >> >> > best practices (in documentation) all the limitations discussed as
> >> >> > to why the limit was set to
> >> >> > 8 earlier can be mentioned. The idea is that CS shouldn't impose
> >> >> > any artificial restrictions and rely only on HV specifications to
> >> >> > the
> >> >>extent
> >> >> possible.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > For any new supported version another entry can be added to the
> >> >> > hypervisor_capabilities table.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As Alex mentioned, the admin is free to decide on the number of
> >> >> > hosts that needs to be added in a cluster as long as the hard max.
> >> >> > limits are not exceeded.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -Koushik
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
> >> >> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 11:45 PM
> >> >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > See inline
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > -Koushik
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> >> >> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 11:24 PM
> >> >> > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
> >> >> > > > VMware
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Koushik,
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > I believe what you pointed out there is the maximum limit for
> >> >> > > > the
> >> >> > > hypervisor.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Yes. Maximum based on the HV version.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Hari,
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > What's the point of the admin setting these values? Afterall,
> >> >> > > > he's the one who's adding hosts himself? If he wants more, why
> >> >> > > > should cs stop
> >> >> > > him?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > --Alex
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > > > > From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
> >> >> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:44 AM
> >> >> > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
> >> >> > > > > VMware
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > Hi Koushik,
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > Can you please elaborate
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > a) how the admin gets to set this value?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Why should the admin be allowed to change these values? These
> are
> >> >> > > the max. limit supported by the specific HV based on the version.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > b) is this value set on a per cluster basis? If so, what is
> >> >> > > > > the default
> >> >> > value?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > It's not per cluster.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > Hari
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > > > > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
> >> >> > > > > Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 4:57 AM
> >> >> > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
> >> >> > > > > VMware
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > Didn't see any feedback, so am assuming that the approach
> >> >> > > > > seems reasonable. I will go ahead and start with the
> >> implementation.
> >> >> > > > > Not planning to write a FS as this is a small feature and the
> >> >> > > > > below mail
> >> >> > > > summarizes it.
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > -Koushik
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > > > > > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
> >> >> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 5:26 PM
> >> >> > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> > > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
> >> >> > > > > > VMware
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > So based on the discussions would it be fair to conclude
> >> >> > > > > > that this should be handled by adding some column like
> >> >> > 'max_host_per_cluster'
> >> >> > > > > > in hypervisor_capabilities table. Currently the following
> >> >> > > > > > version entries are present for Vmware. For each version an
> >> >> > > > > > appropriate value can be associated based on the
> >> >> > > > > > limitations/actual
> >> >> > supported.
> >> >> > > > > > For other HVs where this setting is not applicable some
> >> >> > > > > > dummy value, say (-1) can be
> >> >> > > > > entered.
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > hv_type hv_version
> >> >> > > > > > VMware default
> >> >> > > > > > VMware 4.0
> >> >> > > > > > VMware 4.1
> >> >> > > > > > VMware 5.0
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > Let me know if there is a consensus on this.
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > Thanks,
> >> >> > > > > > Koushik
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > > > > > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> >> >> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:08 PM
> >> >> > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> > > > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
> >> >> > > > > > > VMware
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > +1
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > The more we move these types of things out of
> >> >> > > > > > > configuration and into component specific references the
> >> better.
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > --Alex
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > > > > > > > From: Tamas Monos [mailto:tamasm@veber.co.uk]
> >> >> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:10 AM
> >> >> > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16
> >> >> > > > > > > > on VMware
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > Hi,
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > I'd recommend removing any hard limits from CS and
> >> >> > > > > > > > introduce a variable like "max.guest.limit" on the
> >> >> > > > > > > > Hypervisor Capabilities
> >> >> > page.
> >> >> > > > > > > > This value could default to 8, but should the admin
> >> >> > > > > > > > decide otherwise could be set to anything.
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > 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: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> >> >> > > > > > > > Sent: 20 December 2012 15:25
> >> >> > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> >> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16
> >> >> > > > > > > > on VMware
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Koushik Das
> >> >> > > > > > > > <ko...@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
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >
> >
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com>.
The feature that did not make it to master before 1/31 is now going to be
part of 4.2.
So move your feature ticket and related documents to 4.2.
-abhi
On 06/02/13 10:56 AM, "Koushik Das" <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
>The changes are in review board. I will wait for some more time and if
>there is no feedback will rebase and merge to master/4.1.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Abhinandan Prateek
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:32 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: Koushik Das
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Koushik,
>> If you have not yet updated the progress of this 4.1 feature in
>>jira, please
>> do.
>>
>> -abhi
>>
>> On 27/01/13 3:44 PM, "Koushik Das" <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >See inline. Refer to the code changes @
>> >https://reviews.apache.org/r/9041/
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Prashant Kumar Mishra [mailto:prashantkumar.mishra@citrix.com]
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:56 PM
>> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >> I am planning to take the QA job for this feature. Have reviewed the
>> >> functional spec(not much details are present), went through community
>> >> discussion and have the following questions.
>> >>
>> >> 1-Do we support mixed (heterogeneous) cluster for vmware in CS?
>> >> it seems VMWare support mixed cluster, please correct me if
>> >>I am wrong
>> >> a-" http://communities.vmware.com/message/2008030"
>> >> b-"
>> >>http://blogs.vmware.com/vsphere/2011/10/mixing-esxesxi-versions-
>> >> in-an-hadrs-cluster.html"
>> >
>> >No
>> >
>> >> 2-Are We going to change Global config VMware cluster size limit to
>>16?
>> >
>> >This is removed
>> >
>> >> 3- Apart from configuration and hypervisor_capabilities table are
>> >>there any other table going to be modified ?
>> >
>> >Only hypervisor_capabilities table is modified
>> >
>> >> 4-In hypervisor _capabilities table what is dummy value we are going
>> >>to put for other hypervisor type , is it -1 ?
>> >
>> >Default is null
>> >
>> >> 5-Any API changes ?
>> >
>> >No
>> >
>> >> 6-Upgrade path ?
>> >
>> >Not affected
>> >
>> >> 7-option of adding host through backdoor(adding host separately to
>> >>cluster, even cluster size > 8 host) is still available ?
>> >
>> >No. Looking at the code doesn't look like the backdoor was available
>> >earlier as well.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Prashant Kumar Mishra
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
>> >> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:56 PM
>> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>> >>
>> >> There can be multiple dimensions based on which the size can vary but
>> >> it cannot go beyond the max. value (32).
>> >>
>> >> I am referring to the following docs:
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >> -Koushik
>> >>
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>> >> > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:43 PM
>> >> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi Koushik,
>> >> >
>> >> > I have a question/concern -
>> >> >
>> >> > The "limitations" are multi-dimensional - for example, vSphere 5.0
>> >> > clusters hosting linked clone pools are limited to 8 ESXi hosts
>> >> > when using VMFS datastores and 32 ESXi hosts when using only NFS
>> >> > datastores. In 5.1, they made both 32 hosts. I think 4.0 had a
>> >>different set
>> >> of values.
>> >> >
>> >> > In other words, the host limits are hypervisor type, hypervisor
>> >> > version, storage technology etc. i.e. we cant set the hard limit as
>> >> > 32 as 5.0 did not support it for VMFS..
>> >> >
>> >> > Hari
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
>> >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 10:30 PM
>> >> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>> >> >
>> >> > To clarify some more.
>> >> >
>> >> > What I have suggested is to have a max. hosts per cluster limit
>> >> > based on specific HV version. For e.g. for Vmware
>> >> >
>> >> > Version 4.0 will have a max. limit of X (i.e. in any CS Vmware 4.0
>> >> > cluster, the max. number of hosts that can be added is X) Version
>> >> > 4.1
>> >>will
>> >> have a max.
>> >> > limit of Y Version 5.0 will have a max. limit of Z
>> >> >
>> >> > Based on the vmware specification X, Y, Z are all 32. As part of
>> >> > best practices (in documentation) all the limitations discussed as
>> >> > to why the limit was set to
>> >> > 8 earlier can be mentioned. The idea is that CS shouldn't impose
>> >> > any artificial restrictions and rely only on HV specifications to
>> >> > the
>> >>extent
>> >> possible.
>> >> >
>> >> > For any new supported version another entry can be added to the
>> >> > hypervisor_capabilities table.
>> >> >
>> >> > As Alex mentioned, the admin is free to decide on the number of
>> >> > hosts that needs to be added in a cluster as long as the hard max.
>> >> > limits are not exceeded.
>> >> >
>> >> > -Koushik
>> >> >
>> >> > > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
>> >> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 11:45 PM
>> >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>> >> > >
>> >> > > See inline
>> >> > >
>> >> > > -Koushik
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
>> >> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 11:24 PM
>> >> > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
>> >> > > > VMware
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Koushik,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I believe what you pointed out there is the maximum limit for
>> >> > > > the
>> >> > > hypervisor.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Yes. Maximum based on the HV version.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Hari,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > What's the point of the admin setting these values? Afterall,
>> >> > > > he's the one who's adding hosts himself? If he wants more, why
>> >> > > > should cs stop
>> >> > > him?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > --Alex
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > > > > From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>> >> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:44 AM
>> >> > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
>> >> > > > > VMware
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Hi Koushik,
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Can you please elaborate
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > a) how the admin gets to set this value?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Why should the admin be allowed to change these values? These are
>> >> > > the max. limit supported by the specific HV based on the version.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > > b) is this value set on a per cluster basis? If so, what is
>> >> > > > > the default
>> >> > value?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > It's not per cluster.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Hari
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > > > > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
>> >> > > > > Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 4:57 AM
>> >> > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
>> >> > > > > VMware
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Didn't see any feedback, so am assuming that the approach
>> >> > > > > seems reasonable. I will go ahead and start with the
>> implementation.
>> >> > > > > Not planning to write a FS as this is a small feature and the
>> >> > > > > below mail
>> >> > > > summarizes it.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > -Koushik
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > > > > > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
>> >> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 5:26 PM
>> >> > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
>> >> > > > > > VMware
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > So based on the discussions would it be fair to conclude
>> >> > > > > > that this should be handled by adding some column like
>> >> > 'max_host_per_cluster'
>> >> > > > > > in hypervisor_capabilities table. Currently the following
>> >> > > > > > version entries are present for Vmware. For each version an
>> >> > > > > > appropriate value can be associated based on the
>> >> > > > > > limitations/actual
>> >> > supported.
>> >> > > > > > For other HVs where this setting is not applicable some
>> >> > > > > > dummy value, say (-1) can be
>> >> > > > > entered.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > hv_type hv_version
>> >> > > > > > VMware default
>> >> > > > > > VMware 4.0
>> >> > > > > > VMware 4.1
>> >> > > > > > VMware 5.0
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Let me know if there is a consensus on this.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Thanks,
>> >> > > > > > Koushik
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > > > > > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
>> >> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:08 PM
>> >> > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > > > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
>> >> > > > > > > VMware
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > +1
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > The more we move these types of things out of
>> >> > > > > > > configuration and into component specific references the
>> better.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > --Alex
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > > > > > > > From: Tamas Monos [mailto:tamasm@veber.co.uk]
>> >> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:10 AM
>> >> > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16
>> >> > > > > > > > on VMware
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Hi,
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > I'd recommend removing any hard limits from CS and
>> >> > > > > > > > introduce a variable like "max.guest.limit" on the
>> >> > > > > > > > Hypervisor Capabilities
>> >> > page.
>> >> > > > > > > > This value could default to 8, but should the admin
>> >> > > > > > > > decide otherwise could be set to anything.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > 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: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
>> >> > > > > > > > Sent: 20 December 2012 15:25
>> >> > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16
>> >> > > > > > > > on VMware
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Koushik Das
>> >> > > > > > > > <ko...@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
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >
>
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com>.
The changes are in review board. I will wait for some more time and if there is no feedback will rebase and merge to master/4.1.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abhinandan Prateek
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:32 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Koushik Das
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> Koushik,
> If you have not yet updated the progress of this 4.1 feature in jira, please
> do.
>
> -abhi
>
> On 27/01/13 3:44 PM, "Koushik Das" <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> >See inline. Refer to the code changes @
> >https://reviews.apache.org/r/9041/
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Prashant Kumar Mishra [mailto:prashantkumar.mishra@citrix.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:56 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >> I am planning to take the QA job for this feature. Have reviewed the
> >> functional spec(not much details are present), went through community
> >> discussion and have the following questions.
> >>
> >> 1-Do we support mixed (heterogeneous) cluster for vmware in CS?
> >> it seems VMWare support mixed cluster, please correct me if
> >>I am wrong
> >> a-" http://communities.vmware.com/message/2008030"
> >> b-"
> >>http://blogs.vmware.com/vsphere/2011/10/mixing-esxesxi-versions-
> >> in-an-hadrs-cluster.html"
> >
> >No
> >
> >> 2-Are We going to change Global config VMware cluster size limit to 16?
> >
> >This is removed
> >
> >> 3- Apart from configuration and hypervisor_capabilities table are
> >>there any other table going to be modified ?
> >
> >Only hypervisor_capabilities table is modified
> >
> >> 4-In hypervisor _capabilities table what is dummy value we are going
> >>to put for other hypervisor type , is it -1 ?
> >
> >Default is null
> >
> >> 5-Any API changes ?
> >
> >No
> >
> >> 6-Upgrade path ?
> >
> >Not affected
> >
> >> 7-option of adding host through backdoor(adding host separately to
> >>cluster, even cluster size > 8 host) is still available ?
> >
> >No. Looking at the code doesn't look like the backdoor was available
> >earlier as well.
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Prashant Kumar Mishra
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:56 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >>
> >> There can be multiple dimensions based on which the size can vary but
> >> it cannot go beyond the max. value (32).
> >>
> >> I am referring to the following docs:
> >> 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
> >>
> >> -Koushik
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
> >> > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:43 PM
> >> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >> >
> >> > Hi Koushik,
> >> >
> >> > I have a question/concern -
> >> >
> >> > The "limitations" are multi-dimensional - for example, vSphere 5.0
> >> > clusters hosting linked clone pools are limited to 8 ESXi hosts
> >> > when using VMFS datastores and 32 ESXi hosts when using only NFS
> >> > datastores. In 5.1, they made both 32 hosts. I think 4.0 had a
> >>different set
> >> of values.
> >> >
> >> > In other words, the host limits are hypervisor type, hypervisor
> >> > version, storage technology etc. i.e. we cant set the hard limit as
> >> > 32 as 5.0 did not support it for VMFS..
> >> >
> >> > Hari
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 10:30 PM
> >> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >> >
> >> > To clarify some more.
> >> >
> >> > What I have suggested is to have a max. hosts per cluster limit
> >> > based on specific HV version. For e.g. for Vmware
> >> >
> >> > Version 4.0 will have a max. limit of X (i.e. in any CS Vmware 4.0
> >> > cluster, the max. number of hosts that can be added is X) Version
> >> > 4.1
> >>will
> >> have a max.
> >> > limit of Y Version 5.0 will have a max. limit of Z
> >> >
> >> > Based on the vmware specification X, Y, Z are all 32. As part of
> >> > best practices (in documentation) all the limitations discussed as
> >> > to why the limit was set to
> >> > 8 earlier can be mentioned. The idea is that CS shouldn't impose
> >> > any artificial restrictions and rely only on HV specifications to
> >> > the
> >>extent
> >> possible.
> >> >
> >> > For any new supported version another entry can be added to the
> >> > hypervisor_capabilities table.
> >> >
> >> > As Alex mentioned, the admin is free to decide on the number of
> >> > hosts that needs to be added in a cluster as long as the hard max.
> >> > limits are not exceeded.
> >> >
> >> > -Koushik
> >> >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
> >> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 11:45 PM
> >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >> > >
> >> > > See inline
> >> > >
> >> > > -Koushik
> >> > >
> >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> >> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 11:24 PM
> >> > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
> >> > > > VMware
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Koushik,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I believe what you pointed out there is the maximum limit for
> >> > > > the
> >> > > hypervisor.
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes. Maximum based on the HV version.
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Hari,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > What's the point of the admin setting these values? Afterall,
> >> > > > he's the one who's adding hosts himself? If he wants more, why
> >> > > > should cs stop
> >> > > him?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --Alex
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > > From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
> >> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:44 AM
> >> > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
> >> > > > > VMware
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Hi Koushik,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Can you please elaborate
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > a) how the admin gets to set this value?
> >> > >
> >> > > Why should the admin be allowed to change these values? These are
> >> > > the max. limit supported by the specific HV based on the version.
> >> > >
> >> > > > > b) is this value set on a per cluster basis? If so, what is
> >> > > > > the default
> >> > value?
> >> > >
> >> > > It's not per cluster.
> >> > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Hari
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
> >> > > > > Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 4:57 AM
> >> > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
> >> > > > > VMware
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Didn't see any feedback, so am assuming that the approach
> >> > > > > seems reasonable. I will go ahead and start with the
> implementation.
> >> > > > > Not planning to write a FS as this is a small feature and the
> >> > > > > below mail
> >> > > > summarizes it.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -Koushik
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > > > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com]
> >> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 5:26 PM
> >> > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
> >> > > > > > VMware
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > So based on the discussions would it be fair to conclude
> >> > > > > > that this should be handled by adding some column like
> >> > 'max_host_per_cluster'
> >> > > > > > in hypervisor_capabilities table. Currently the following
> >> > > > > > version entries are present for Vmware. For each version an
> >> > > > > > appropriate value can be associated based on the
> >> > > > > > limitations/actual
> >> > supported.
> >> > > > > > For other HVs where this setting is not applicable some
> >> > > > > > dummy value, say (-1) can be
> >> > > > > entered.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > hv_type hv_version
> >> > > > > > VMware default
> >> > > > > > VMware 4.0
> >> > > > > > VMware 4.1
> >> > > > > > VMware 5.0
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Let me know if there is a consensus on this.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > > Koushik
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > > > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> >> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:08 PM
> >> > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on
> >> > > > > > > VMware
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > +1
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > The more we move these types of things out of
> >> > > > > > > configuration and into component specific references the
> better.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > --Alex
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > > > > > From: Tamas Monos [mailto:tamasm@veber.co.uk]
> >> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:10 AM
> >> > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16
> >> > > > > > > > on VMware
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > I'd recommend removing any hard limits from CS and
> >> > > > > > > > introduce a variable like "max.guest.limit" on the
> >> > > > > > > > Hypervisor Capabilities
> >> > page.
> >> > > > > > > > This value could default to 8, but should the admin
> >> > > > > > > > decide otherwise could be set to anything.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > 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: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> >> > > > > > > > Sent: 20 December 2012 15:25
> >> > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16
> >> > > > > > > > on VMware
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Koushik Das
> >> > > > > > > > <ko...@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
> >> > > > > > > >
> >