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

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.