cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sanjay Tripathi <sanjay.tripa...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Limit Resources to domain/account
Date Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:45:54 GMT
I have updated the FS with this detail.
Link to FS: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Limit+Resources+to+domains+and+accounts

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:07 PM
> To: CloudStack DeveloperList
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Limit Resources to domain/account
> 
> Please update the FS with this important detail.
> 
> On 1/16/13 11:52 AM, "Sanjay Tripathi" <sanjay.tripathi@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> >Koushik,
> >
> >>What is the upgrade story? For e.g. say based on the existing VM's for
> >>an account, the total CPU and RAM exceeds the global maximums. What
> >>happens in this case?
> >
> >
> >If admin sets the limits for an account and suppose that account
> >already has existing VMs whose total CPU and RAM counts are exceeding
> >the limits, in this case CloudStack would not shut down the VMs
> >assigned to account to level the resources. If the user tries to deploy
> >a VM, CS will check the limits of that account and in this case CS will
> >not allow the account to deploy the VM.
> >
> >>Also for CPU number of cores are considered, should speed also be
> >>considered?
> >Thanks for suggestion :), we can consider speed also as a part of CPU
> >resource.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Sanjay
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chris Sears [mailto:chris.x.sears@sungard.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:39 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Limit Resources to domain/account
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Sanjay Tripathi
> >> <sanjay.tripathi@citrix.com
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Can anyone suggest that what should be the default max resource
> >> > values that an account/project can have for the following global
> >> > config
> >> parameters:
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems like the least surprising default max would be to leave them
> >>all unlimited. Otherwise, it's likely some admins will just overlook
> >>this and then just stumble upon the arbitrary limit. If you default to
> >>unlimited, only admins who need to restrict it will need to be
> >>concerned with the settings.
> >>
> >> As an aside, I wasn't clear from the FS how to specify "unlimited" in
> >>the UI.
> >> Does leaving the value blank imply unlimited?
> >>
> >>  - Chris


Mime
View raw message