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.kan...@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 [imusa...@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.kan...@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 [tam...@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 Follow us on Facebook: > www.facebook.com/veberhost > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@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.child...@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 <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Koushik Das > > > <koushik....@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 > > >
