From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8B4861B34 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:04:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9DBE117DA3 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:03:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id C34DD17D95 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:03:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 82D8E44C0B for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:03:54 +0200 (CEST) To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Oguz Bektas References: <20200914103216.320620-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> <20200914103216.320620-2-o.bektas@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht Message-ID: <9d6aed9b-2218-5f05-ec06-3fa93054c20c@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:03:52 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:81.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/81.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200914103216.320620-2-o.bektas@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.457 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment KAM_NUMSUBJECT 0.5 Subject ends in numbers excluding current years NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com, config.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH container 1/2] fix #2938: increase limit of max cores from 128 to 512 X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:04:25 -0000 On 9/14/20 12:32 PM, Oguz Bektas wrote: > Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas > --- > src/PVE/LXC/Config.pm | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/PVE/LXC/Config.pm b/src/PVE/LXC/Config.pm > index 4cd669c..223b10e 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/LXC/Config.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/LXC/Config.pm > @@ -401,14 +401,14 @@ my $confdesc = { > type => 'integer', > description => "The number of cores assigned to the container. A container can use all available cores by default.", > minimum => 1, > - maximum => 128, > + maximum => 512, > }, > cpulimit => { > optional => 1, > type => 'number', > description => "Limit of CPU usage.\n\nNOTE: If the computer has 2 CPUs, it has a total of '2' CPU time. Value '0' indicates no CPU limit.", > minimum => 0, > - maximum => 128, > + maximum => 512, > default => 0, > }, > cpuunits => { > why 512? please give state some actual reason for choosing such a number, especially if it differs from our current kernel config value of 8192... https://git.proxmox.com/?p=mirror_ubuntu-focal-kernel.git;a=blob;f=arch/x86/Kconfig;h=8ef85139553f5a4ad5187375af898266355c4177;hb=b311b46c7d1ab21bf0a11a6fa5bad76f98fb77af#l1014