From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 065EF1FF0E7 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:44:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 69C6B214D5; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:44:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:44:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH manager 1/1] ui: processor edit: allow setting 8 sockets To: Maximiliano Sandoval References: <20260706114719.340123-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1783669448080 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.065 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: K7UI245OJ63LX7FLHDLG7QMJKVLH3RTE X-Message-ID-Hash: K7UI245OJ63LX7FLHDLG7QMJKVLH3RTE X-MailFrom: d.csapak@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 7/10/26 9:42 AM, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: > Dominik Csapak writes: > >> if the backend does not have an upper limit, shouldn't we use the same >> behavior in the frontend? > > We have a hardcoded limit of $MAX_NUMA = 8 in qemu-server's Memory.pm as > mentioned by Alexandre in a reply to v1. I opted to be on the safer side > without redoing the entire numa handling. > > At the moment there are systems with 8 sockets and at least one customer > asked for this in enterprise support. > but this is only tangentially related to the socket amount? i can boot a vm with e.g. 16 sockets + numa 1 boot perfectly fine? >> AFAICS two issues arise by having a lower value here than the backend: >> * we have to raise this (probably) again in the future >> * a config with a higher value cannot be edited in the gui >> (because it get's invalid) >> >> So i'd prefer just to remove the maxValue here completely. >> >> If there is any detrimental effect when having to much sockets >> configured, we could add a warning e.g. when the sockets >> is > 8. >