Hello Boris,
During the troubleshooting, I have found that the problem is connected with
my host environment, so I decided to build the Dockerfile which is for
"simulator & client" running altogether.
The Dockerfile itself is, for example, is here:
https://pastebin.com/raw/ZVjtHX7F
The Dockerfile
Please LGTM if OK... https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/3016
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 14:20, Andrija Panic wrote:
> THx Wido, let me add this to agent.properties template on master, since
> it's missing, I have no idea where you got it from (perhaps from code that
> uses it)
>
> thx
>
>
THx Wido, let me add this to agent.properties template on master, since
it's missing, I have no idea where you got it from (perhaps from code that
uses it)
thx
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 13:35, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>
>
> On 11/9/18 1:33 PM, Andrija Panic wrote:
> > Thanks Wido - though I do
On 11/9/18 1:33 PM, Andrija Panic wrote:
> Thanks Wido - though I don't seem to be able to find any related setting
> (there is host.overcommit.mem.mb but that is not it - unless you can
> define negative value to it ) ?
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/master/agent/conf/agent.proper
Thanks Wido - though I don't seem to be able to find any related setting
(there is host.overcommit.mem.mb but that is not it - unless you can define
negative value to it ) ?
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/master/agent/conf/agent.properties
thx
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 13:03, Wido den Ho
People, I know this is not a sexy subject but it needs attention. There is
a PR [1] out for preparational work on upgrading antiquated logging
frameworks. It needs attention if only :+1: or an argument not to do it.
Several other similar jobs need doing as well. I wasn't in Montreal so i
don't know
On 11/9/18 1:08 PM, Rafael Weingärtner wrote:
> For me, that seems some restrictions in paid productions. “you are client
> type X, then you can start only Y VMs”, and this has been a legacy around
> our code base. We could very much remove this limit (on instance numbers);
> I expect operators
For me, that seems some restrictions in paid productions. “you are client
type X, then you can start only Y VMs”, and this has been a legacy around
our code base. We could very much remove this limit (on instance numbers);
I expect operators to know what they are doing, and to monitor closely the
On 11/9/18 12:56 PM, Andrija Panic wrote:
> afaik not - but I did run once or twice intom perhaps looselym connected
> issue - ACS reports 100% of host RAM (makes sense) asavailable for VM
> deployment to ACS - so in 1-2 cases I did run into out of memory killer,
> crashing my VMs.
>
> It would
afaik not - but I did run once or twice intom perhaps looselym connected
issue - ACS reports 100% of host RAM (makes sense) asavailable for VM
deployment to ACS - so in 1-2 cases I did run into out of memory killer,
crashing my VMs.
It would be great to have some amount of "reserve RAM" for host O
Do we need these logical constraints in ACS at all?
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 6:57 AM Wido den Hollander wrote:
>
>
> On 11/8/18 11:20 PM, Simon Weller wrote:
> > I think these is legacy and a guess back in the day. It was 50 at one
> point and it was lifted higher a few releases. ago.
> >
>
> I se
rafaelweingartner closed pull request #19: updated jasypt version for change db
password
URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation/pull/19
This is a PR merged from a forked repository.
As GitHub hides the original diff on merge, it is displayed below for
the sake of provenan
On 11/8/18 11:20 PM, Simon Weller wrote:
> I think these is legacy and a guess back in the day. It was 50 at one point
> and it was lifted higher a few releases. ago.
>
I see. I'm about to do a test with a bunch of 128GB hypervisors and
spawning a lot of 128M VMs. Trying to see where the limi
13 matches
Mail list logo
