Tamas There are cases where you want to have flexibility between running full or linked clone and the global switch maybe too inflexible.
Pros for linked clone if you environment is truly cloud ready, when you scale horizontally - you want to be able to spin up vms in seconds to accommodate the rapid load. With linked clones, I can spin up vms in 20-30 seconds on slow nfs store. It's also good when you have small but highly reliable datastore The disk locking and contention issues are things of the past with VMFS5 and VAII support. With full clones - your mileage will vary depending on the backend storage. While it is good to have reliable storage like full clone, there are some instances when it does not really matter. Also, it's CS admin responsibility to have reliable backend storage to avoid corruption, maintain back-up of templates and version control your templates to avoid overwrites. Any thoughts? Ilya Tamas Monos <tam...@veber.co.uk> wrote: The end user will have no idea what linked-in or full clone means so I would recommend not to reflect this to the end user in any way especially in the deployment wizard. There should be a global option for this and the deployment api would use that value. Only admins should be able to change cloning behaviour. 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<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost> Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost> -----Original Message----- From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net] Sent: 21 December 2012 07:47 To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Raise cluster size limit to 16 on VMware If I can propose a solution. 1) extend vm create api to have an option like "linkedclone = 0" to do traditional full clone or set it to 1 to make it linked. Either 1 or 0 set to default. 2) add a feature in instance deployment wizard to do a full or link clone triggering the api call referenced above. any thoughts? Kelven Yang <kelven.y...@citrix.com> wrote: Converting linked-clone to full clone is doable. Kelven On 12/20/12 11:17 AM, "Anthony Xu" <xuefei...@citrix.com> wrote: >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<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost<http://www.twitter.com/veberhost>> >> Follow us on Facebook: >> www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://www.facebook.com/veberhost<http://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 >> >> >> >
