[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 Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:31:32AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 07:42 PM, 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.
> correctly.  See this comment:
> 
> /* Maximum length of a memory peek buffer message.
>  * Note applications need to be aware of this limit and issue multiple
>  * requests for large amounts of data.
>  */
> const REMOTE_DOMAIN_MEMORY_PEEK_BUFFER_MAX = 65536;
> 
> That is, you cannot send any RPC with more than 64k data, because .
> With a cap of 256 pool names, that means each pool name can be (on
> average) about 256 bytes before you hit the RPC cap.

Not quite right, you meant to look at virnetrpcprotocol.x:

  /* Size of message payload */
  const VIR_NET_MESSAGE_PAYLOAD_MAX = 262120;

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|


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