Jeronimo, Do you mind filing a bug for this?
There's some legacy with this that went all the way back to 1.0 of our product. Back then, multiple commands executing on the same hypervisor was just not very reliable. Xen 3 would sometimes brick when multiple vm commands were executed. I doubt it's necessary any more but we need to do some tests before we can remove this. I've heard of this type of requests from others as well so a bug would be good to track this. Thanks. --Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeronimo Garcia [mailto:garciaj...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 12:40 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: Job-Executor workers > > Ok I'll rebuild and see the differences and wether we want to have this live > or not . > > Thanks a lot for your help! > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < > alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > No, it can't be updated using UI/WebServices APIs. > > > > I remember somebody in the dev list mentioned that he modified > > StartCommand.java with executeInSequence=false and tested it with KVM > > hypervisor, and it worked for him. Not sure how concurrent starts (and > > how > > many) are supported by other hypervisors, so have to be careful if > > decide to set this flag to true. > > > > > > > > > > On 4/4/13 12:01 PM, "Jeronimo Garcia" <garciaj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Hi. > > > > > >I can see the override on *agent/api/StartCommand.java* > > >* > > >* > > >*@Override* > > >*public boolean executeInSequence() {* > > >* return true; > > > * > > >*}* > > >* > > >* > > >I'm guessing this can't be changed from the gui or api right? > > > > > >Thanks > > > > > > > > >On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Jeronimo Garcia > > ><garciaj...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks Alena, im checking that out now. > > >> Chiradeep , I'm using the default centos template that comes with > > >> the secondary storage sys vm. > > >> > > >> Thanks! > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Chiradeep Vittal < > > >> chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Note that each deployment to local storage has to download the > > >>> base template to local disk from secondary storage. How big is the > template? > > >>> How fast is your secondary storage? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 4/4/13 11:36 AM, "Jeronimo Garcia" <garciaj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> >Hi List. > > >>> > > > >>> >I'm having issues when deploying a big number of virtual machines > > >>>across > > >>> a > > >>> >number of nodes. > > >>> > > > >>> >the imporession that i get ( from the logs) is that the > > >>>AsyncJobExecutor > > >>> >is > > >>> >pulling jobs from the queue and do them one by one (which when > > >>> >you are deploying a big number of virtual machines could take a > > >>> >long while) > > >>> > > > >>> >In AsyncJobManager.java i see something that could change this > > >>>behaviour > > >>> >but im not sure: > > >>> > > > >>> >*final int cloudMaxActive = > > >>> >Integer.parseInt(dbProps.getProperty("db.cloud.maxActive")); > > >>> > * > > >>> >*int poolSize = (cloudMaxActive * 2) / 3;* > > >>> > > > >>> >. > > >>> > > > >>> >I'm using 'random' as vm.allocation.algorithm , and my rest is to > > >>>deploy > > >>> >200 vms across 7 nodes using local storage, also im using > > >>> >cloud-server-4.0.1-1 version. > > >>> > > > >>> >I've tried playing with worker settings in agents and manager but > > >>> >i > > >>>don't > > >>> >see any change so far. > > >>> > > > >>> >Thanks! > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
