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 E72C11FF0E7 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:46:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9262A214DE; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:46:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <51e7e302-dbfa-4219-abbd-b354fba77418@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:46:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH manager 1/1] ui: processor edit: allow setting 8 sockets From: Dominik Csapak To: Maximiliano Sandoval References: <20260706114719.340123-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1783669586533 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.064 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: ONAH3RTYCPEFDUJCJMD7NGVZMQBF22S5 X-Message-ID-Hash: ONAH3RTYCPEFDUJCJMD7NGVZMQBF22S5 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 9:44 AM, Dominik Csapak wrote: > > > 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? to clarify what i mean here: the MAX_NUMA is only relevant for manual numa memory placement, but automatic placement doesn't have that limit in our code.... e.g. the below vm shows in showcmd: -m 1024 \ -object 'memory-backend-ram,id=ram-node0,size=64M' \ -numa 'node,nodeid=0,cpus=0,memdev=ram-node0' \ -object 'memory-backend-ram,id=ram-node1,size=64M' \ -numa 'node,nodeid=1,cpus=1,memdev=ram-node1' \ -object 'memory-backend-ram,id=ram-node2,size=64M' \ -numa 'node,nodeid=2,cpus=2,memdev=ram-node2' \ -object 'memory-backend-ram,id=ram-node3,size=64M' \ -numa 'node,nodeid=3,cpus=3,memdev=ram-node3' \ -object 'memory-backend-ram,id=ram-node4,size=64M' \ -numa 'node,nodeid=4,cpus=4,memdev=ram-node4' \ -object 'memory-backend-ram,id=ram-node5,size=64M' \ -numa 'node,nodeid=5,cpus=5,memdev=ram-node5' \ -object 'memory-backend-ram,id=ram-node6,size=64M' \ -numa 'node,nodeid=6,cpus=6,memdev=ram-node6' \ -object 'memory-backend-ram,id=ram-node7,size=64M' \ -numa 'node,nodeid=7,cpus=7,memdev=ram-node7' \ -object 'memory-backend-ram,id=ram-node8,size=64M' \ -numa 'node,nodeid=8,cpus=8,memdev=ram-node8' \ -object 'memory-backend-ram,id=ram-node9,size=64M' \ -numa 'node,nodeid=9,cpus=9,memdev=ram-node9' \ -object 'memory-backend-ram,id=ram-node10,size=64M' \ -numa 'node,nodeid=10,cpus=10,memdev=ram-node10' \ -object 'memory-backend-ram,id=ram-node11,size=64M' \ -numa 'node,nodeid=11,cpus=11,memdev=ram-node11' \ -object 'memory-backend-ram,id=ram-node12,size=64M' \ -numa 'node,nodeid=12,cpus=12,memdev=ram-node12' \ -object 'memory-backend-ram,id=ram-node13,size=64M' \ -numa 'node,nodeid=13,cpus=13,memdev=ram-node13' \ -object 'memory-backend-ram,id=ram-node14,size=64M' \ -numa 'node,nodeid=14,cpus=14,memdev=ram-node14' \ -object 'memory-backend-ram,id=ram-node15,size=64M' \ -numa 'node,nodeid=15,cpus=15,memdev=ram-node15' so it splits it's 1024MiB in 16 * 64MiB numa chunks... > > 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. >> > > > > >