cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: CLOUDSTACK-6023: Non windows instances are created on XenServer with a vcpu-max above supported xenserver limits
Date Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:47:52 GMT
we see host crashes because of large posts to pool-masters that are
due to this. The fix reduces the size of these posts. When we device a
more elegant solution I am all for it but at the moment the fix is the
most sensible protection against those crashes.

the way this causes crashes is because information is added to the
post on all vcpus
 even those that are not actually allocated.

@Joris, please correct me, because I am wrong



On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Harikrishna Patnala
<harikrishna.patnala@citrix.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are xenserver docs [1][2] that suggests max VCPUs limit for Linux VMS is 32.
>
> [1] says that 32 VCPUs is the limitation on Linux vms and *a maximum of 16 vCPUs are
supported by *XenCenter
>
> And this value is set in time frame of 4.2 and since then we are using this.
> to be safe I agree to set 16 max VCPU value, but may I know how this VCPU-max value effects
the HTTP request. I could not find the reason for 32 VCPUS-max limit in the log
>
> [20140204T13:52:17.346Z|error|xenserverhost1|144 inet-RPC|host.call_plugin R:e58e985539ab|master_connection]
Received HTTP error 500 ({ method = POST; uri = /remote_db_access; query = [  ]; content_length
= [ 315932 ]; transfer encoding = ; version = 1.1; cookie = [ pool_secret=386bbf39-8710-4d2d-f452-9725d79c2393/aa7bcda9-8ebb-0cef-bb77-c6b496c5d859/1f928d82-7a20-9117-dd30-f96c7349b16e
]; task = ; subtask_of = ; content-type = ; user_agent = xapi/1.9 })
>
>
>
> -Harikrishna
>
>
>
>
> [1] Section 3.4 in http://support.citrix.com/servlet/KbServlet/download/32303-102-691296/guest.pdf
> [2] http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX134887
>
>
>
>
> On 04-Feb-2014, at 9:06 pm, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello community,
>>
>> This is not the only serious bug Joris has filed today. The other one
>> is quite some older and we ran into it only now because before we
>> hadn't been using internal addresses in the 172.16 or 192.168 ranges.
>> This one is CLOUDSTACK-6020 and may not impede the RC but I think 6023
>> does. Before I cast my -1 I want to hear some more opinions on it.
>>
>> regards,
>> Daan
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Joris van Lieshout
>> <JvanLieshout@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Today I've submitted this bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6023
>>> Because this bug has stability impact on XenServer I'm mentioning it here as
well. In my opinion it may impact the current vote on 4.3.
>>>
>>> Thanks you
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Joris van Lieshout
>>>
>>>
>>> Schuberg Philis
>>> Boeingavenue 271
>>> 1119 PD  Schiphol-Rijk
>>> schubergphilis.com
>>>
>>> +31 207506672
>>> +31651428188
>>> _____________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>



-- 
Daan

Mime
View raw message