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 F21CB1FF0E7 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 10:45:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B83AE2145A; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 10:45:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Maximiliano Sandoval To: Dominik Csapak Subject: superseded: [PATCH manager 1/1] ui: processor edit: allow setting 8 sockets In-Reply-To: <58aa3941-3f63-460a-99a8-c46e61b4a43d@proxmox.com> (Dominik Csapak's message of "Fri, 10 Jul 2026 10:19:15 +0200") References: <20260706114719.340123-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> <58aa3941-3f63-460a-99a8-c46e61b4a43d@proxmox.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.9; emacs 30.1 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 10:44:51 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1783673081104 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 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: EQ3LPINSX5KIGSOB7ZIFDZLPEPYOZPV4 X-Message-ID-Hash: EQ3LPINSX5KIGSOB7ZIFDZLPEPYOZPV4 X-MailFrom: m.sandoval@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: Dominik Csapak writes: > On 7/10/26 10:06 AM, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: >> Dominik Csapak writes: >> >>> 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? >> In this case it is not possible to define numa policies via --numa0, >> ..., --numa15 (they stop at --numa7). > > yes i get that, but this is an option that is > 1. not exposed on the ui at all > 2. has nothing to do with the number of sockets (inherently) > > for example: > i can configure: > > sockets: 16 > cores: 1 > numa: 1 > memory: 1024 > numa0: cpus=0-7,memory=512 > numa1: cpus=8-15,memory=512 > > and have 16 sockets but only 2 numa nodes... > >> When discussing this off-list with Fiona we decided to be on the safer >> side, the number can be bumped again once 16 socket CPUs are more >> common. > > this "breaks" the UI when a user sets higher values manually, as in, one > cannot set any other option as long as the sockets are higher > > so im very much in favor of removing the maxValue at all... > > > >> >>>>> 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. >>>> >> Superseded-by: https://lore.proxmox.com/all/20260710084423.164757-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com/T/#u -- Maximiliano