You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Hari Kannan <ha...@citrix.com> on 2012/12/19 20:52:27 UTC
[PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Hello All,
I wish to propose Raising cluster size limit to 16 on VMware in CloudStack - I have added some details here<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Raise+cluster+size+limit+to+16+on+VMware> along with a JIRA ticket 672
Please review and comment
Hari Kannan
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by "Kelcey Damage (BT)" <ke...@backbonetechnology.com>.
This is certainly needed,
Thank you
-kd
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 12:52 PM
>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Cc: Kelven Yang
>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
>On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Hari Kannan <ha...@citrix.com>
>wrote:
>> Hello All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I wish to propose Raising cluster size limit to 16 on VMware in
CloudStack - I
>have added some details
>here<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Raise+clust
>er+size+limit+to+16+on+VMware> along with a JIRA ticket 672
>>
>>
>>
>> Please review and comment
>>
>>
>>
>> Hari Kannan
>
>+1
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Hari Kannan <ha...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> I wish to propose Raising cluster size limit to 16 on VMware in CloudStack - I have added some details here<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Raise+cluster+size+limit+to+16+on+VMware> along with a JIRA ticket 672
>
>
>
> Please review and comment
>
>
>
> Hari Kannan
+1
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Tamas Monos <ta...@veber.co.uk>.
I'm trying to think how it actually affects the service itself or the end user experience.
It does not, does it?
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: 21 December 2012 16:44
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Musayev, Ilya
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Tamas Monos <ta...@veber.co.uk> wrote:
> The end user will have no idea what linked-in or full clone means so I would recommend not to reflect this to the end user in any way especially in the deployment wizard.
> There should be a global option for this and the deployment api would use that value. Only admins should be able to change cloning behaviour.
Defining it in the service offering would make more sense to me.
--David
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Tamas Monos <ta...@veber.co.uk> wrote:
> The end user will have no idea what linked-in or full clone means so I would recommend not to reflect this to the end user in any way especially in the deployment wizard.
> There should be a global option for this and the deployment api would use that value. Only admins should be able to change cloning behaviour.
Defining it in the service offering would make more sense to me.
--David
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by "Kelceydamage@bbits" <ke...@bbits.ca>.
Hmm, for me linked clones cause slow downs with aggressive Pre/post deduplication.
I agree that it should be a cluster switch. Perhaps housed in a service offering and using the tagging system?
But yes, any less granular then a cluster and we could run into issues for being too restrictive.
-kd
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 21, 2012, at 9:10 AM, "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net> wrote:
> Tamas
>
> There are cases where you want to have flexibility between running full or linked clone and the global switch maybe too inflexible.
>
> Pros for linked clone
> if you environment is truly cloud ready, when you scale horizontally - you want to be able to spin up vms in seconds to accommodate the rapid load. With linked clones, I can spin up vms in 20-30 seconds on slow nfs store.
> It's also good when you have small but highly reliable datastore
> The disk locking and contention issues are things of the past with VMFS5 and VAII support.
>
> With full clones - your mileage will vary depending on the backend storage.
>
> While it is good to have reliable storage like full clone, there are some instances when it does not really matter.
>
> Also, it's CS admin responsibility to have reliable backend storage to avoid corruption, maintain back-up of templates and version control your templates to avoid overwrites.
>
> Any thoughts?
> Ilya
>
> Tamas Monos <ta...@veber.co.uk> wrote:
> The end user will have no idea what linked-in or full clone means so I would recommend not to reflect this to the end user in any way especially in the deployment wizard.
> There should be a global option for this and the deployment api would use that value. Only admins should be able to change cloning behaviour.
>
> 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<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost>
> Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
> Sent: 21 December 2012 07:47
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> If I can propose a solution.
>
> 1) extend vm create api to have an option like "linkedclone = 0" to do traditional full clone or set it to 1 to make it linked. Either 1 or 0 set to default.
>
> 2) add a feature in instance deployment wizard to do a full or link clone triggering the api call referenced above.
>
> any thoughts?
>
> Kelven Yang <ke...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Converting linked-clone to full clone is doable.
>
> Kelven
>
> On 12/20/12 11:17 AM, "Anthony Xu" <Xu...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Linked clone is fast, it can decrease the VM provision time.
>> Full clone improves disk access performance.
>>
>> Not share if VMware provide API to convert linked clone to full clone?
>>
>> If yes, should we consider following?
>> Virtual disk starts with linked clone( fast VM/Disk provision).
>> Convert linked clone to full clone later if needed
>>
>>
>> Anthony
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:55 AM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>>
>>> I have no voting power either... I proposed to add this feature
>>> (didnt know there was an existing proposal) yesterday
>>>
>>> Hari
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Musayev, Ilya [imusayev@webmd.net]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:50 PM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>>
>>> Though I have no voting power, I agree we should have a config
>>> setting for using linked clone or traditional clone.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>>
>>> +1 on making linked clones optional
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Tamas Monos [tamasm@veber.co.uk]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:01 PM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>>
>>> Sorry for the side-track for a moment but just another reason to get
>>> rid of linked-in clone template management on vmware in the long-run.
>>> I still do not believe using linked-in clones is actually beneficial
>>> taking into account it drawbacks:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-529
>>>
>>> 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<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost>> Follow us on Facebook:
>>> www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
>>> Sent: 20 December 2012 16:50
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>>
>>> Kelven offered a reason earlier.
>>>
>>> "8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for
>>> linked-clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we
>>> post to reduce possible runtime problems."
>>>
>>> It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
>>>
>>> --Alex
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM
>>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using
>>>> a more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just
>>>> curious, but are there more specific reasons that we are talking
>>>> about 4.x having a lower number?
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> -chip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net>.
Tamas
There are cases where you want to have flexibility between running full or linked clone and the global switch maybe too inflexible.
Pros for linked clone
if you environment is truly cloud ready, when you scale horizontally - you want to be able to spin up vms in seconds to accommodate the rapid load. With linked clones, I can spin up vms in 20-30 seconds on slow nfs store.
It's also good when you have small but highly reliable datastore
The disk locking and contention issues are things of the past with VMFS5 and VAII support.
With full clones - your mileage will vary depending on the backend storage.
While it is good to have reliable storage like full clone, there are some instances when it does not really matter.
Also, it's CS admin responsibility to have reliable backend storage to avoid corruption, maintain back-up of templates and version control your templates to avoid overwrites.
Any thoughts?
Ilya
Tamas Monos <ta...@veber.co.uk> wrote:
The end user will have no idea what linked-in or full clone means so I would recommend not to reflect this to the end user in any way especially in the deployment wizard.
There should be a global option for this and the deployment api would use that value. Only admins should be able to change cloning behaviour.
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<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost>
Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost>
-----Original Message-----
From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
Sent: 21 December 2012 07:47
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
If I can propose a solution.
1) extend vm create api to have an option like "linkedclone = 0" to do traditional full clone or set it to 1 to make it linked. Either 1 or 0 set to default.
2) add a feature in instance deployment wizard to do a full or link clone triggering the api call referenced above.
any thoughts?
Kelven Yang <ke...@citrix.com> wrote:
Converting linked-clone to full clone is doable.
Kelven
On 12/20/12 11:17 AM, "Anthony Xu" <Xu...@citrix.com> wrote:
>Linked clone is fast, it can decrease the VM provision time.
>Full clone improves disk access performance.
>
>Not share if VMware provide API to convert linked clone to full clone?
>
>If yes, should we consider following?
>Virtual disk starts with linked clone( fast VM/Disk provision).
>Convert linked clone to full clone later if needed
>
>
>Anthony
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:55 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> I have no voting power either... I proposed to add this feature
>> (didnt know there was an existing proposal) yesterday
>>
>> Hari
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Musayev, Ilya [imusayev@webmd.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:50 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Though I have no voting power, I agree we should have a config
>> setting for using linked clone or traditional clone.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> +1 on making linked clones optional
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Tamas Monos [tamasm@veber.co.uk]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:01 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Sorry for the side-track for a moment but just another reason to get
>> rid of linked-in clone template management on vmware in the long-run.
>> I still do not believe using linked-in clones is actually beneficial
>> taking into account it drawbacks:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-529
>>
>> 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<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost>> Follow us on Facebook:
>> www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
>> Sent: 20 December 2012 16:50
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Kelven offered a reason earlier.
>>
>> "8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for
>> linked-clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we
>> post to reduce possible runtime problems."
>>
>> It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
>>
>> --Alex
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM
>> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> > > 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
>> > >
>> >
>> > 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using
>> > a more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just
>> > curious, but are there more specific reasons that we are talking
>> > about 4.x having a lower number?
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> > -chip
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Kelven Yang <ke...@citrix.com>.
There will be occasionally some cases that user may need to be aware of
the differences of these two underlying implementations, in cases that
users want to build auto-scale application servers, fast-provisioning
linked-clone would be a preferable choice for them. Stateless application
servers are very suitable to be launched quickly in this way.
I think it may not be a bad idea for end-user to be aware of these
concepts.
There are eventually two essential parts to make the solution reliably.
First from infrastructure level, we probably need to manage a planned
usage of linked-clone for a host cluster, since physical restrictions in
ESXi 4/4.1/5.0 do exist, second, from end user perspective, we probably
need to expose this feature explicitly so that user can be in the driver
seat.
Kelven
On 12/21/12 2:46 AM, "Tamas Monos" <ta...@veber.co.uk> wrote:
>The end user will have no idea what linked-in or full clone means so I
>would recommend not to reflect this to the end user in any way especially
>in the deployment wizard.
>There should be a global option for this and the deployment api would use
>that value. Only admins should be able to change cloning behaviour.
>
>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: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
>Sent: 21 December 2012 07:47
>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
>If I can propose a solution.
>
>1) extend vm create api to have an option like "linkedclone = 0" to do
>traditional full clone or set it to 1 to make it linked. Either 1 or 0
>set to default.
>
>2) add a feature in instance deployment wizard to do a full or link
>clone triggering the api call referenced above.
>
>any thoughts?
>
>Kelven Yang <ke...@citrix.com> wrote:
>Converting linked-clone to full clone is doable.
>
>Kelven
>
>On 12/20/12 11:17 AM, "Anthony Xu" <Xu...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>>Linked clone is fast, it can decrease the VM provision time.
>>Full clone improves disk access performance.
>>
>>Not share if VMware provide API to convert linked clone to full clone?
>>
>>If yes, should we consider following?
>>Virtual disk starts with linked clone( fast VM/Disk provision).
>>Convert linked clone to full clone later if needed
>>
>>
>>Anthony
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:55 AM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>>
>>> I have no voting power either... I proposed to add this feature
>>> (didnt know there was an existing proposal) yesterday
>>>
>>> Hari
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Musayev, Ilya [imusayev@webmd.net]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:50 PM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>>
>>> Though I have no voting power, I agree we should have a config
>>> setting for using linked clone or traditional clone.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>>
>>> +1 on making linked clones optional
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Tamas Monos [tamasm@veber.co.uk]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:01 PM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>>
>>> Sorry for the side-track for a moment but just another reason to get
>>> rid of linked-in clone template management on vmware in the long-run.
>>> I still do not believe using linked-in clones is actually beneficial
>>> taking into account it drawbacks:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-529
>>>
>>> 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<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost> Follow us
>>>on Facebook:
>>> www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
>>> Sent: 20 December 2012 16:50
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>>
>>> Kelven offered a reason earlier.
>>>
>>> "8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for
>>> linked-clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we
>>> post to reduce possible runtime problems."
>>>
>>> It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
>>>
>>> --Alex
>>>
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>> > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM
>>> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>> > > 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
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using
>>> > a more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just
>>> > curious, but are there more specific reasons that we are talking
>>> > about 4.x having a lower number?
>>> >
>>> > 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
>>> >
>>> > -chip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Tamas Monos <ta...@veber.co.uk>.
The end user will have no idea what linked-in or full clone means so I would recommend not to reflect this to the end user in any way especially in the deployment wizard.
There should be a global option for this and the deployment api would use that value. Only admins should be able to change cloning behaviour.
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: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusayev@webmd.net]
Sent: 21 December 2012 07:47
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
If I can propose a solution.
1) extend vm create api to have an option like "linkedclone = 0" to do traditional full clone or set it to 1 to make it linked. Either 1 or 0 set to default.
2) add a feature in instance deployment wizard to do a full or link clone triggering the api call referenced above.
any thoughts?
Kelven Yang <ke...@citrix.com> wrote:
Converting linked-clone to full clone is doable.
Kelven
On 12/20/12 11:17 AM, "Anthony Xu" <Xu...@citrix.com> wrote:
>Linked clone is fast, it can decrease the VM provision time.
>Full clone improves disk access performance.
>
>Not share if VMware provide API to convert linked clone to full clone?
>
>If yes, should we consider following?
>Virtual disk starts with linked clone( fast VM/Disk provision).
>Convert linked clone to full clone later if needed
>
>
>Anthony
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:55 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> I have no voting power either... I proposed to add this feature
>> (didnt know there was an existing proposal) yesterday
>>
>> Hari
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Musayev, Ilya [imusayev@webmd.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:50 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Though I have no voting power, I agree we should have a config
>> setting for using linked clone or traditional clone.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> +1 on making linked clones optional
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Tamas Monos [tamasm@veber.co.uk]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:01 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Sorry for the side-track for a moment but just another reason to get
>> rid of linked-in clone template management on vmware in the long-run.
>> I still do not believe using linked-in clones is actually beneficial
>> taking into account it drawbacks:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-529
>>
>> 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<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost> Follow us on Facebook:
>> www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
>> Sent: 20 December 2012 16:50
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Kelven offered a reason earlier.
>>
>> "8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for
>> linked-clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we
>> post to reduce possible runtime problems."
>>
>> It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
>>
>> --Alex
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM
>> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> > > 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
>> > >
>> >
>> > 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using
>> > a more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just
>> > curious, but are there more specific reasons that we are talking
>> > about 4.x having a lower number?
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> > -chip
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net>.
If I can propose a solution.
1) extend vm create api to have an option like "linkedclone = 0" to do traditional full clone or set it to 1 to make it linked. Either 1 or 0 set to default.
2) add a feature in instance deployment wizard to do a full or link clone triggering the api call referenced above.
any thoughts?
Kelven Yang <ke...@citrix.com> wrote:
Converting linked-clone to full clone is doable.
Kelven
On 12/20/12 11:17 AM, "Anthony Xu" <Xu...@citrix.com> wrote:
>Linked clone is fast, it can decrease the VM provision time.
>Full clone improves disk access performance.
>
>Not share if VMware provide API to convert linked clone to full clone?
>
>If yes, should we consider following?
>Virtual disk starts with linked clone( fast VM/Disk provision).
>Convert linked clone to full clone later if needed
>
>
>Anthony
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:55 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> I have no voting power either... I proposed to add this feature (didnt
>> know there was an existing proposal) yesterday
>>
>> Hari
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Musayev, Ilya [imusayev@webmd.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:50 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Though I have no voting power, I agree we should have a config setting
>> for using linked clone or traditional clone.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> +1 on making linked clones optional
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Tamas Monos [tamasm@veber.co.uk]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:01 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Sorry for the side-track for a moment but just another reason to get
>> rid of linked-in clone template management on vmware in the long-run.
>> I still do not believe using linked-in clones is actually beneficial
>> taking into account it drawbacks:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-529
>>
>> 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<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost> Follow us on Facebook:
>> www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
>> Sent: 20 December 2012 16:50
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Kelven offered a reason earlier.
>>
>> "8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for
>> linked-clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post
>> to reduce possible runtime problems."
>>
>> It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
>>
>> --Alex
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM
>> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> > > 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
>> > >
>> >
>> > 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using a
>> > more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just curious,
>> > but are there more specific reasons that we are talking about 4.x
>> > having a lower number?
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> > -chip
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Kelven Yang <ke...@citrix.com>.
Converting linked-clone to full clone is doable.
Kelven
On 12/20/12 11:17 AM, "Anthony Xu" <Xu...@citrix.com> wrote:
>Linked clone is fast, it can decrease the VM provision time.
>Full clone improves disk access performance.
>
>Not share if VMware provide API to convert linked clone to full clone?
>
>If yes, should we consider following?
>Virtual disk starts with linked clone( fast VM/Disk provision).
>Convert linked clone to full clone later if needed
>
>
>Anthony
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:55 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> I have no voting power either... I proposed to add this feature (didnt
>> know there was an existing proposal) yesterday
>>
>> Hari
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Musayev, Ilya [imusayev@webmd.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:50 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Though I have no voting power, I agree we should have a config setting
>> for using linked clone or traditional clone.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> +1 on making linked clones optional
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Tamas Monos [tamasm@veber.co.uk]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:01 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Sorry for the side-track for a moment but just another reason to get
>> rid of linked-in clone template management on vmware in the long-run.
>> I still do not believe using linked-in clones is actually beneficial
>> taking into account it drawbacks:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-529
>>
>> 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: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
>> Sent: 20 December 2012 16:50
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Kelven offered a reason earlier.
>>
>> "8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for
>> linked-clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post
>> to reduce possible runtime problems."
>>
>> It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
>>
>> --Alex
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM
>> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> > > 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
>> > >
>> >
>> > 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using a
>> > more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just curious,
>> > but are there more specific reasons that we are talking about 4.x
>> > having a lower number?
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> > -chip
>>
>>
>>
>
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Anthony Xu <Xu...@citrix.com>.
Linked clone is fast, it can decrease the VM provision time.
Full clone improves disk access performance.
Not share if VMware provide API to convert linked clone to full clone?
If yes, should we consider following?
Virtual disk starts with linked clone( fast VM/Disk provision).
Convert linked clone to full clone later if needed
Anthony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:55 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> I have no voting power either... I proposed to add this feature (didnt
> know there was an existing proposal) yesterday
>
> Hari
> ________________________________________
> From: Musayev, Ilya [imusayev@webmd.net]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:50 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> Though I have no voting power, I agree we should have a config setting
> for using linked clone or traditional clone.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> +1 on making linked clones optional
> ________________________________________
> From: Tamas Monos [tamasm@veber.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:01 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> Sorry for the side-track for a moment but just another reason to get
> rid of linked-in clone template management on vmware in the long-run.
> I still do not believe using linked-in clones is actually beneficial
> taking into account it drawbacks:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-529
>
> 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: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> Sent: 20 December 2012 16:50
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> Kelven offered a reason earlier.
>
> "8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for
> linked-clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post
> to reduce possible runtime problems."
>
> It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
>
> --Alex
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using a
> > more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just curious,
> > but are there more specific reasons that we are talking about 4.x
> > having a lower number?
> >
> > 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
> >
> > -chip
>
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
Ilya,
That's for formal votes (and in this case it would be any committer).
However this isn't a formal vote! We're usually going based on a full
community consensus. Your opinion certainly matters!
Sorry if we confused things, but the whole bylaw thing is for when
more formality is required.
- chip
On Dec 20, 2012, at 4:12 PM, "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net> wrote:
> Based on the CloudStack bylaws (still in review state, sent out by Chip if I'm not mistaken) and previous experience on this mailing list - it seemed that only PPMC had vote ability.
>
> If I misinterpreted that, my apology.
>
> Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
> I didn't know people are granted on voting power. Where did you see that in this community?
>
> --Alex
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:55 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> I have no voting power either... I proposed to add this feature (didnt know
>> there was an existing proposal) yesterday
>>
>> Hari
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Musayev, Ilya [imusayev@webmd.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:50 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Though I have no voting power, I agree we should have a config setting for
>> using linked clone or traditional clone.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> +1 on making linked clones optional
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Tamas Monos [tamasm@veber.co.uk]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:01 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Sorry for the side-track for a moment but just another reason to get rid of
>> linked-in clone template management on vmware in the long-run.
>> I still do not believe using linked-in clones is actually beneficial taking into
>> account it drawbacks: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-
>> 529
>>
>> 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<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost> Follow us on Facebook:
>> www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
>> Sent: 20 December 2012 16:50
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> Kelven offered a reason earlier.
>>
>> "8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for linked-
>> clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post to reduce possible
>> runtime problems."
>>
>> It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
>>
>> --Alex
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using a
>>> more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just curious,
>>> but are there more specific reasons that we are talking about 4.x
>>> having a lower number?
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> -chip
>
>
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net>.
Based on the CloudStack bylaws (still in review state, sent out by Chip if I'm not mistaken) and previous experience on this mailing list - it seemed that only PPMC had vote ability.
If I misinterpreted that, my apology.
Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
I didn't know people are granted on voting power. Where did you see that in this community?
--Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:55 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> I have no voting power either... I proposed to add this feature (didnt know
> there was an existing proposal) yesterday
>
> Hari
> ________________________________________
> From: Musayev, Ilya [imusayev@webmd.net]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:50 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> Though I have no voting power, I agree we should have a config setting for
> using linked clone or traditional clone.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> +1 on making linked clones optional
> ________________________________________
> From: Tamas Monos [tamasm@veber.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:01 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> Sorry for the side-track for a moment but just another reason to get rid of
> linked-in clone template management on vmware in the long-run.
> I still do not believe using linked-in clones is actually beneficial taking into
> account it drawbacks: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-
> 529
>
> 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<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost> Follow us on Facebook:
> www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> Sent: 20 December 2012 16:50
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> Kelven offered a reason earlier.
>
> "8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for linked-
> clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post to reduce possible
> runtime problems."
>
> It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
>
> --Alex
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using a
> > more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just curious,
> > but are there more specific reasons that we are talking about 4.x
> > having a lower number?
> >
> > 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
> >
> > -chip
>
>
>
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.
I didn't know people are granted on voting power. Where did you see that in this community?
--Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:55 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> I have no voting power either... I proposed to add this feature (didnt know
> there was an existing proposal) yesterday
>
> Hari
> ________________________________________
> From: Musayev, Ilya [imusayev@webmd.net]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:50 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> Though I have no voting power, I agree we should have a config setting for
> using linked clone or traditional clone.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> +1 on making linked clones optional
> ________________________________________
> From: Tamas Monos [tamasm@veber.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:01 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> Sorry for the side-track for a moment but just another reason to get rid of
> linked-in clone template management on vmware in the long-run.
> I still do not believe using linked-in clones is actually beneficial taking into
> account it drawbacks: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-
> 529
>
> 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: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> Sent: 20 December 2012 16:50
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> Kelven offered a reason earlier.
>
> "8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for linked-
> clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post to reduce possible
> runtime problems."
>
> It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
>
> --Alex
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using a
> > more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just curious,
> > but are there more specific reasons that we are talking about 4.x
> > having a lower number?
> >
> > 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
> >
> > -chip
>
>
>
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Hari Kannan <ha...@citrix.com>.
I have no voting power either... I proposed to add this feature (didnt know there was an existing proposal) yesterday
Hari
________________________________________
From: Musayev, Ilya [imusayev@webmd.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:50 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Though I have no voting power, I agree we should have a config setting for using linked clone or traditional clone.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
+1 on making linked clones optional
________________________________________
From: Tamas Monos [tamasm@veber.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:01 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Sorry for the side-track for a moment but just another reason to get rid of linked-in clone template management on vmware in the long-run.
I still do not believe using linked-in clones is actually beneficial taking into account it drawbacks: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-529
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: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
Sent: 20 December 2012 16:50
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Kelven offered a reason earlier.
"8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for linked-clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post to reduce possible runtime problems."
It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
--Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using a
> more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just curious,
> but are there more specific reasons that we are talking about 4.x
> having a lower number?
>
> 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
>
> -chip
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net>.
Though I have no voting power, I agree we should have a config setting for using linked clone or traditional clone.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:37 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
+1 on making linked clones optional
________________________________________
From: Tamas Monos [tamasm@veber.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:01 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Sorry for the side-track for a moment but just another reason to get rid of linked-in clone template management on vmware in the long-run.
I still do not believe using linked-in clones is actually beneficial taking into account it drawbacks: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-529
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: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
Sent: 20 December 2012 16:50
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Kelven offered a reason earlier.
"8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for linked-clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post to reduce possible runtime problems."
It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
--Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using a
> more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just curious,
> but are there more specific reasons that we are talking about 4.x
> having a lower number?
>
> 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
>
> -chip
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Hari Kannan <ha...@citrix.com>.
+1 on making linked clones optional
________________________________________
From: Tamas Monos [tamasm@veber.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:01 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Sorry for the side-track for a moment but just another reason to get rid of linked-in clone template management on vmware in the long-run.
I still do not believe using linked-in clones is actually beneficial taking into account it drawbacks: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-529
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: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
Sent: 20 December 2012 16:50
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Kelven offered a reason earlier.
"8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for linked-clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post to reduce possible runtime problems."
It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
--Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using a
> more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just curious,
> but are there more specific reasons that we are talking about 4.x
> having a lower number?
>
> 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
>
> -chip
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Tamas Monos <ta...@veber.co.uk>.
Sorry for the side-track for a moment but just another reason to get rid of linked-in clone template management on vmware in the long-run.
I still do not believe using linked-in clones is actually beneficial taking into account it drawbacks: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-529
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: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
Sent: 20 December 2012 16:50
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Kelven offered a reason earlier.
"8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for linked-clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post to reduce possible runtime problems."
It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
--Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using a
> more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just curious,
> but are there more specific reasons that we are talking about 4.x
> having a lower number?
>
> 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
>
> -chip
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Kelven offered a reason earlier.
>
> "8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for
> linked-clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post to
> reduce possible runtime problems."
>
> It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
>
> --Alex
>
See the first para here:
http://blogs.vmware.com/vsphere/2012/08/vsphere-5-1-new-storage-features-2.html
--David
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
A recommendation could be (in the docs), that clusters > X hosts use a
DVS (Nexus 1KV or VMware's DVS). Those switching approaches obviously
limit the port profile creation to 1 switch target for the cluster
(the DVS control plane, i.e. the VSM or Virtual Center).
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Kelven Yang <ke...@citrix.com> wrote:
> There is another constraint that comes into play when cluster size becomes
> large, for example 32 hosts. We use standard vSwitch in default
> implementation, in order to support out-of-band vMotion (may be activated
> by DRS), when we deploy a VM, we actually will program all the vSwitches
> within the cluster, and this takes time, bigger the cluster, longer the
> time. So 16 hosts per cluster sounds a good balance even if the hard limit
> from vSphere is 32.
>
> Kelven
>
> On 12/20/12 10:05 AM, "Will Chan" <wi...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>>Correct. In vsphere 5.1, this limitation was lifted to support up to 32
>>hosts.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:55 AM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Chip Childers
>>> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>> > Sorry, should have been more clear in my question. What's the math
>>> > that got you to 8?
>>> >
>>>
>>> No math involved.
>>> It was a VMFS limitation around number of hosts that could
>>>simultaneously
>>> use a linked clone disk image.
>>>
>>> --David
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Kelven Yang <ke...@citrix.com>.
There is another constraint that comes into play when cluster size becomes
large, for example 32 hosts. We use standard vSwitch in default
implementation, in order to support out-of-band vMotion (may be activated
by DRS), when we deploy a VM, we actually will program all the vSwitches
within the cluster, and this takes time, bigger the cluster, longer the
time. So 16 hosts per cluster sounds a good balance even if the hard limit
from vSphere is 32.
Kelven
On 12/20/12 10:05 AM, "Will Chan" <wi...@citrix.com> wrote:
>Correct. In vsphere 5.1, this limitation was lifted to support up to 32
>hosts.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:55 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Chip Childers
>> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> > Sorry, should have been more clear in my question. What's the math
>> > that got you to 8?
>> >
>>
>> No math involved.
>> It was a VMFS limitation around number of hosts that could
>>simultaneously
>> use a linked clone disk image.
>>
>> --David
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Will Chan <wi...@citrix.com>.
Correct. In vsphere 5.1, this limitation was lifted to support up to 32 hosts.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:55 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Chip Childers
> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, should have been more clear in my question. What's the math
> > that got you to 8?
> >
>
> No math involved.
> It was a VMFS limitation around number of hosts that could simultaneously
> use a linked clone disk image.
>
> --David
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Chip Childers
<ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> Sorry, should have been more clear in my question. What's the math
> that got you to 8?
>
No math involved.
It was a VMFS limitation around number of hosts that could
simultaneously use a linked clone disk image.
--David
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
Sorry, should have been more clear in my question. What's the math
that got you to 8?
- chip
Sent from my iPhone.
On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Kelven offered a reason earlier.
>
> "8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for
> linked-clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post to
> reduce possible runtime problems."
>
> It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
>
> --Alex
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using a
>> more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just curious,
>> but are there more specific reasons that we are talking about 4.x
>> having a lower number?
>>
>> 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
>>
>> -chip
>
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.
Kelven offered a reason earlier.
"8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for
linked-clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post to
reduce possible runtime problems."
It's due to VMFSv3 and usage of linked clone in CloudStack.
--Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:46 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> 4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using a
> more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just curious,
> but are there more specific reasons that we are talking about 4.x
> having a lower number?
>
> 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
>
> -chip
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> 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
>
4, 5 and 5.1 are all 32 hosts per cluster. Raw metrics, not using a
more complex algo to calculate the more realistic cap. Just curious,
but are there more specific reasons that we are talking about 4.x
having a lower number?
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
-chip
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
> >> > > > > > > >
> >
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Abhinandan Prateek <Ab...@citrix.com>.
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>.
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 Prashant Kumar Mishra <pr...@citrix.com>.
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"
2-Are We going to change Global config VMware cluster size limit to 16?
3- Apart from configuration and hypervisor_capabilities table are there any other table going to be modified ?
4-In hypervisor _capabilities table what is dummy value we are going to put for other hypervisor type , is it -1 ?
5-Any API changes ?
6-Upgrade path ?
7-option of adding host through backdoor(adding host separately to cluster, even cluster size > 8 host) is still available ?
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>.
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 Hari Kannan <ha...@citrix.com>.
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>.
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>.
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 Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.
These are technical limits imposed by hypervisors.
Admins exercise their options by limiting how many hosts they add to a cluster.
--Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:57 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> Hi Alex, maybe, I misunderstood - I thought the admin provides these values
> - so, how are these values seeded?
>
> Hari
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:54 AM
> 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.
>
> 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?
> > b) is this value set on a per cluster basis? If so, what is the default value?
> >
> > 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 Hari Kannan <ha...@citrix.com>.
Hi Alex, maybe, I misunderstood - I thought the admin provides these values - so, how are these values seeded?
Hari
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:54 AM
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.
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?
> b) is this value set on a per cluster basis? If so, what is the default value?
>
> 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 Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.
Koushik,
I believe what you pointed out there is the maximum limit for the hypervisor.
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?
> b) is this value set on a per cluster basis? If so, what is the default value?
>
> 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 Hari Kannan <ha...@citrix.com>.
Hi Koushik,
Can you please elaborate
a) how the admin gets to set this value?
b) is this value set on a per cluster basis? If so, what is the default value?
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>.
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>.
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 Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.
+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 Hari Kannan <ha...@citrix.com>.
As we are discussing the "cluster" limit, would be more appropriate to set this as a cluster property - since I dont anticipate mixed clusters (such as a single cluster having VMware 4.x and 5.x), it would cover Dave Nalley's concern?
One still still might be - if a single cluster has multiple primary storages, how do we address this - VMFS might have limit X, NFS might have limit Y but belong to the same cluster - least common denominator?
Hari
________________________________________
From: Tamas Monos [tamasm@veber.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:09 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 Tamas Monos <ta...@veber.co.uk>.
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 David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
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>.
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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelven Yang [mailto:kelven.yang@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:24 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> 8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for linked-
> clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post to reduce possible
> runtime problems.
>
> We have a default setup about this limitation in Config.java, the last section
> (shown as "1-8") gives a validation range, any change from UI will go through
> our java validator, so it may prevent you from changing to any number that is
> greater than 8.
>
> VmwarePerClusterHostMax("Advanced", ManagementServer.class,
> Integer.class, "vmware.percluster.host.max", "8", "maxmium hosts per
> vCenter cluster(do not let it grow over 8)", "1-8"),
>
>
>
> If you are running vCenter/ESX 5.1 and up, you are safe to increase cluster
> size to 16, to workaround the hard-coded 1-8 range in java validator, you may
> directly make a change in database.
>
> I think raising cluster size limit will be addressed soon in upcoming CloudStack
> releases.
>
> Kelven
>
>
>
> On 12/19/12 4:27 PM, "Will Chan" <wi...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> >Has someone proven you can't change the global setting and not get past
> >8 host? I could've sworn this was possible.
> >
> >Will
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mice Xia [mailto:weiran.xia1@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:47 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems more like a bug, iirc you cant set the global config VMware
> >>cluster size limit more than 8. IMO we only need to change this magic
> >>number to 16.
> >>
> >> And if 4.0.x will exist for some time, let's say, 8 months, it's
> >>worthwhile merging it back. If it will EOS soon, I agree with you
> >>target this kind of fix in 4.1.0.
> >>
> >> Mice
> >>
> >> 在 2012-12-20，7:25，David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> 写道：
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Mice Xia <we...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> +1
> >> >>
> >> >> I propose merge this back to 4.0.x
> >> >>
> >> >> Mice
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > That's a new feature, so probably should wait til 4.1.0
> >> >
> >> > --David
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Will Chan <wi...@citrix.com>.
Actually, you are right, the API prevents someone from adding beyond 8. However, I think you can work-around this by simply modifying the configuration table directly.
Will
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Will Chan [mailto:will.chan@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 4:27 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> Has someone proven you can't change the global setting and not get past 8
> host? I could've sworn this was possible.
>
> Will
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mice Xia [mailto:weiran.xia1@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:47 PM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
> >
> >
> > It seems more like a bug, iirc you cant set the global config VMware
> > cluster size limit more than 8. IMO we only need to change this magic
> > number to 16.
> >
> > And if 4.0.x will exist for some time, let's say, 8 months, it's
> > worthwhile merging it back. If it will EOS soon, I agree with you
> > target this kind of fix in 4.1.0.
> >
> > Mice
> >
> > 在 2012-12-20，7:25，David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> 写道：
> >
> > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Mice Xia <we...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> I propose merge this back to 4.0.x
> > >>
> > >> Mice
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > That's a new feature, so probably should wait til 4.1.0
> > >
> > > --David
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Kelven Yang <ke...@citrix.com>.
8-host limitation comes from the limitation posted from VMFSv3 for
linked-clone usage. So in CloudStack, it is an artificial limit we post to
reduce possible runtime problems.
We have a default setup about this limitation in Config.java, the last
section (shown as "1-8") gives a validation range, any change from UI will
go through our java validator, so it may prevent you from changing to any
number that is greater than 8.
VmwarePerClusterHostMax("Advanced", ManagementServer.class, Integer.class,
"vmware.percluster.host.max", "8", "maxmium hosts per vCenter cluster(do
not let it grow over 8)", "1-8"),
If you are running vCenter/ESX 5.1 and up, you are safe to increase
cluster size to 16, to workaround the hard-coded 1-8 range in java
validator, you may directly make a change in database.
I think raising cluster size limit will be addressed soon in upcoming
CloudStack releases.
Kelven
On 12/19/12 4:27 PM, "Will Chan" <wi...@citrix.com> wrote:
>Has someone proven you can't change the global setting and not get past 8
>host? I could've sworn this was possible.
>
>Will
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mice Xia [mailto:weiran.xia1@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:47 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>>
>>
>> It seems more like a bug, iirc you cant set the global config VMware
>>cluster
>> size limit more than 8. IMO we only need to change this magic number to
>> 16.
>>
>> And if 4.0.x will exist for some time, let's say, 8 months, it's
>>worthwhile
>> merging it back. If it will EOS soon, I agree with you target this kind
>>of fix in
>> 4.1.0.
>>
>> Mice
>>
>> 在 2012-12-20，7:25，David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> 写道：
>>
>> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Mice Xia <we...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> I propose merge this back to 4.0.x
>> >>
>> >> Mice
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > That's a new feature, so probably should wait til 4.1.0
>> >
>> > --David
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Will Chan <wi...@citrix.com>.
Has someone proven you can't change the global setting and not get past 8 host? I could've sworn this was possible.
Will
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mice Xia [mailto:weiran.xia1@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:47 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
>
> It seems more like a bug, iirc you cant set the global config VMware cluster
> size limit more than 8. IMO we only need to change this magic number to
> 16.
>
> And if 4.0.x will exist for some time, let's say, 8 months, it's worthwhile
> merging it back. If it will EOS soon, I agree with you target this kind of fix in
> 4.1.0.
>
> Mice
>
> 在 2012-12-20，7:25，David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> 写道：
>
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Mice Xia <we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> I propose merge this back to 4.0.x
> >>
> >> Mice
> >>
> >>
> >
> > That's a new feature, so probably should wait til 4.1.0
> >
> > --David
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Mice Xia <we...@gmail.com>.
It seems more like a bug, iirc you cant set the global config VMware cluster size limit more than 8. IMO we only need to change this magic number to 16.
And if 4.0.x will exist for some time, let's say, 8 months, it's worthwhile merging it back. If it will EOS soon, I agree with you target this kind of fix in 4.1.0.
Mice
在 2012-12-20，7:25，David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> 写道：
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Mice Xia <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> I propose merge this back to 4.0.x
>>
>> Mice
>>
>>
>
> That's a new feature, so probably should wait til 4.1.0
>
> --David
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Mice Xia <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> I propose merge this back to 4.0.x
>
> Mice
>
>
That's a new feature, so probably should wait til 4.1.0
--David
RE: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.
Mice,
Please add a subtask with target fix in 4.0.x to keep track of this. Then the release manager can open that for discussion when triaging for a 4.0.x release.
--alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mice Xia [mailto:weiran.xia1@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:25 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
>
> +1
>
> I propose merge this back to 4.0.x
>
> Mice
>
>
>
> 在 2012-12-20，3:52，Hari Kannan <ha...@citrix.com> 写道：
>
> > Hello All,
> >
> >
> >
> > I wish to propose Raising cluster size limit to 16 on VMware in CloudStack - I
> have added some details
> here<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Raise+clus
> ter+size+limit+to+16+on+VMware> along with a JIRA ticket 672
> >
> >
> >
> > Please review and comment
> >
> >
> >
> > Hari Kannan
Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Posted by Mice Xia <we...@gmail.com>.
+1
I propose merge this back to 4.0.x
Mice
在 2012-12-20，3:52，Hari Kannan <ha...@citrix.com> 写道：
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> I wish to propose Raising cluster size limit to 16 on VMware in CloudStack - I have added some details here<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Raise+cluster+size+limit+to+16+on+VMware> along with a JIRA ticket 672
>
>
>
> Please review and comment
>
>
>
> Hari Kannan