AaronJAnderson
Contributor
Contributor

VMNames limit reached. Cannot create npvdi10

First of all, we're NOT using composer...

I have a small pool of test desktops with a naming pattern of npvdi{n:fixed=1}

Under Pool Settings I have "Delete Desktop after logoff" set to Yes.

So I log in and out a few times and it eventually deletes and builds everything up to npvid09, and then says "VMNames limit reached. Cannot create npvdi10"

I sort of expected the View manager to restart at npvid00 once it reached the end of the names it could use.

Does anyone have any ideas or input about this?

0 Kudos
9 Replies
kgsivan
VMware Employee
VMware Employee

Could you please check whether computer accounts are deleted from AD which was created for those deleted VMs ?

0 Kudos
jburleigh
Contributor
Contributor

Change it to {n:fixed=3} and try it again.  You should be able to create more than 9.

0 Kudos
AaronJAnderson
Contributor
Contributor

The machine accounts have been deleted either manually or by script through our testing phases. It was determined in another discussion that View (without composer) will not remove machine accounts from AD. I wrote a script that compares a folder in vCenter with the OU the machines are kept in, and removes the old ones every morning at 5am.

So no, when it needs to start over at 00, the machine name is not in use.

0 Kudos
AaronJAnderson
Contributor
Contributor

For technical reasons our pool needs to be a specific range of names that are predefined (not worth getting into here)

so we have reserved VSTAQ00 through VSTAQ99

I used the fixed=1 just to keep testing simple... I dont want it to keep rolling up the names to infinity and beyond...

0 Kudos
AaronJAnderson
Contributor
Contributor

I know we've had this working in the past with a test pool with only a few machines...

I know because it WASNT removing the machine account when it deleted the VM in vCenter. It would go back to the begining on the list and build a machine ending in 00, but that account was still in AD (stale) and it wouldn't properly join the domain, but it would re-use that name.

0 Kudos
tacticsbaby
Expert
Expert

I know I am getting into this one late but in case this is still unsolved I have found that the cause of this problem, at least in my case was the value fixed=2. Once I get to the 100th VM my pool creation failed because fixed=2 would be violated with a value of 100. I set fixed=3 and the problem instantly went away.

0 Kudos
jburleigh
Contributor
Contributor

Nice,

Do I get credit for the correct answer?

Thanks,

John

0 Kudos
tacticsbaby
Expert
Expert

Not sure because I did not start this thread. Hopefully I at least get some helpful answer points.Smiley Wink

0 Kudos
TechTeamGlobal
Contributor
Contributor

use "npvdi0 {n:fixed=2}  Resulting VM names npvdi001 >  and it will VMNames limit reached at 099

Should you have to exceed 099 VMs in a pool  you can edit and use  this  example "npvdi01{n:fixed=2}"     Resulting VM names npvdi0101 >  

If you use {n:fixed=3}  Resulting VM names npvdi0001 >

I hope this helps

Kah

0 Kudos