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 612531FF0E7 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:42:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4C7F8214E0; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:42:34 +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 "Thu, 9 Jul 2026 16:30:43 +0200") References: <20260706114719.340123-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.9; emacs 30.1 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:42:30 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1783669339585 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: K5BVLAQQPLNNO5QMIFRJUOHWPKZCK2KZ X-Message-ID-Hash: K5BVLAQQPLNNO5QMIFRJUOHWPKZCK2KZ 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: > 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. > 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