[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] Increased upper limit on lists of pool names



On 03/15/2012 09:42 AM, Jesse J. Cook wrote:
256 (8 bits) is insufficient for large scale deployments. 65536 (16 bits) is a
more appropriate limit and should be sufficient. You are more likely to run
into other system limitations first, such as the 31998 inode link limit on
ext3.
---
  src/remote/remote_protocol.x |    2 +-
  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/remote/remote_protocol.x b/src/remote/remote_protocol.x
index 59774b2..58f0871 100644
--- a/src/remote/remote_protocol.x
+++ b/src/remote/remote_protocol.x
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ const REMOTE_INTERFACE_NAME_LIST_MAX = 256;
  const REMOTE_DEFINED_INTERFACE_NAME_LIST_MAX = 256;

  /* Upper limit on lists of storage pool names. */
-const REMOTE_STORAGE_POOL_NAME_LIST_MAX = 256;
+const REMOTE_STORAGE_POOL_NAME_LIST_MAX = 65536;

Seems we have much problem of the array length for the
RPC calls. A similiar problem with VOL_NAME_LIST_MAX:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802357

Osier


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]