cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kelven Yang <kelven.y...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware
Date Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:11:13 GMT
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" <tamasm@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 <kelven.yang@citrix.com> wrote:
>Converting linked-clone to full clone is doable.
>
>Kelven
>
>On 12/20/12 11:17 AM, "Anthony Xu" <Xuefei.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 <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>> > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Koushik Das
>>> > > <koushik.das@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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>


Mime
View raw message