From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBB211FF0E7 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 10:07:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DDCF9214E8; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 10:07:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Maximiliano Sandoval To: Dominik Csapak Subject: Re: [PATCH manager 1/1] ui: processor edit: allow setting 8 sockets In-Reply-To: (Dominik Csapak's message of "Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:44:18 +0200") References: <20260706114719.340123-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.9; emacs 30.1 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 10:07:03 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1783670812814 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: O3O4GWWF7XRCS32XZMZ4JF5HWEV4KU7P X-Message-ID-Hash: O3O4GWWF7XRCS32XZMZ4JF5HWEV4KU7P 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 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). 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. >>> 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. >> -- Maximiliano