Re: storagedriver domain limited to 61 "shares" - Xen 4.16.6 pre2

["J. Roeleveld" <joost@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday, February 12, 2024 8:09:35 AM CET Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 12.02.24 07:57, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, February 12, 2024 7:40:39 AM CET Juergen Gross wrote:
> > 
> >> On 11.02.24 17:21, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> You can raise the default of 1000 nodes per domain (how to do that
> >> depends
> >> on the Xenstore type you are running, xenstored or oxenstored).
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Juergen,
> > 
> > Many thanks for this. I forgot I already raised this in the past to 10000
> > on  the host and the current amount of entries is quite close to this
> > limit: # xenstore-ls | wc -l
> > 9590
> > 
> > I will increase this and try again when I have a chance to reboot the
> > host.
> 
> Which version of Xen are you running?

I am currently using 4.16.6_pre2

> In case it is not too old (>4.15), you could try to restart xenstored via
> live update giving it the new parameters. Note that this feature is still
> "Tech Preview", but there are no issues I'm aware of. In dom0 you'd do:
> 
>    xenstore-control live-update -c '<new parameters>' /usr/sbin/xenstored

Considering that restarting of VMs fails once I hit this issue, I prefer to 
test when I am able to reboot the host anyway. :)

> > Is there any benefit of using "oxenstored" over "xenstored" ? I currently
> > use  "xenstored" and apart from this, don't seem to have any issues.
>
> I'm biased, as I'm the maintainer of "xenstored". :-)

Understandable. Reason I am asking is because "oxenstored" seems new to me as 
I didn't hear about it till now. Was wondering if that is going to replace 
"xenstored" eventually.

> BTW, oxenstored has the same default of 1000 nodes per domain.

There is one thing that confuses me about this.

I notice the limit is applied to the entire host, not per domain.
The entire xenstore-ls output gives me 9k+ entries. This is with 15 domU's.
On average, I should stay below 1k nodes per domain.

Unless "domain" in this context is not a Virtual Machine ?

--
Joost