Backend is mysql 5.1.
mysql> describe user_pool;
+---------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+---------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| oid | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| name | varchar(128) | YES | UNI | NULL | |
| body | mediumtext | YES | | NULL | |
| uid | int(11) | YES | | NULL | |
| gid | int(11) | YES | | NULL | |
| owner_u | int(11) | YES | | NULL | |
| group_u | int(11) | YES | | NULL | |
| other_u | int(11) | YES | | NULL | |
+---------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
8 rows in set (0.00 sec)
mysql>
mediumtext should be good for a longer text field than that. the body
field is about 236KB right now with 271 keys currently stored in it.
Steve Timm
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Daniel Molina wrote:
Hi Steven,
It looks like a DB limitation, this information is stored in the user template.
So it should depend on the BODY
column type and the DB backend used
Cheers
On 11 October 2014 03:58, Steven C Timm <t...@fnal.gov> wrote:
We have been doing bulk tests of the OpenNebula 4.8 econe-server. With
just a straight
econe-run-instances we can get up to 1000 VM's (the limit of our current
subnet)
started fairly quickly (about 30 minutes)
But in practice we are using a more complicated sequence of EC2 calls via
HTCondor.
In particular it is doing a CreateKeyPair call before it launches each VM and
then
calling the RunInstances method with the --keypair option, a unique keypair for
each VM.
After the VM exits, it called a DeleteKeyPair call.
IT appears there is a hard limit of the number of key pairs that can be stored
in
any one user's template and that hard limit is 301. Any further CreateKeyPair
calls
return with "connection reset by peer" causing HTCondor to mark the VM as held.
Fortunately it is possible to override this and tell HTCondor to continue, but
it's a pain.
We do have ways to log into the vm's without the ssh key pair so we wouldn't
even really need to register
them at all.
Is my analysis correct? Is there a hard limit of the number of keys that can
be stored in the user template?
If so, how best to get around this limit?
Steve Timm
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opennebula.org
http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org
--
--
Daniel Molina
Project Engineer
OpenNebula - Flexible Enterprise Cloud Made Simple
www.OpenNebula.org | dmol...@opennebula.org | @OpenNebula
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven C. Timm, Ph.D (630) 840-8525
t...@fnal.gov http://home.fnal.gov/~timm/
Fermilab Scientific Computing Division, Scientific Computing Services Quad.
Grid and Cloud Services Dept., Associate Dept. Head for Cloud Computing
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@lists.opennebula.org
http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org
