Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

make VM listing scale better #682

Closed
OpenNebulaProject opened this issue Nov 20, 2017 · 2 comments · May be fixed by ekmixon/one#38
Closed

make VM listing scale better #682

OpenNebulaProject opened this issue Nov 20, 2017 · 2 comments · May be fixed by ekmixon/one#38

Comments

@OpenNebulaProject
Copy link


Author Name: Felix Schüren (Felix Schüren)
Original Redmine Issue: 2338, https://dev.opennebula.org/issues/2338
Original Date: 2013-09-26


I have a need to efficiently receive specific subsets of the currently existing VMs. For example:
a) list of all VMs running on a specific hypervisor
b) list of all VMs attached to a specific virtual network

The current implementation becomes very slow & inefficient at large numbers of virtual machines, having to transfer essentially the full list of all VMs for most queries. I would recommend some additional query options that efficiently return just the wanted data, in essence changing the internal SQL queries to be more specific dependent on API query options.

@OpenNebulaProject
Copy link
Author


Original Redmine Comment
Author Name: Javi Fontan (Javi Fontan)
Original Date: 2014-01-22T14:14:41Z


It's not exactly what you've asked for but some changes are made to the codebase that will become 4.6 that will alleviate your problem:

  • Big pools can be sent paginated and are parsed using SAX. This makes the parsing faster and take less memory
  • It's able to use Ox library for XML parsing. This library is much faster parsing xmlrpc and its payload (the pool).

Using a newer ruby version greatly increases the speed of the tools. 2.1.0 runs much faster that 1.8.7

http://dev.opennebula.org/issues/2371

@rsmontero
Copy link
Member

Already implemented in current versions

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants