On 03/15/2012 11:48 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Using the sequence of RPC calls to iterate over this is only addressing that second part of memory usage. So I'm not really feeling that's a huge win, given the complexity it introduces.
I'm inclined to say, that if people are creating setups with 1000's of volume & guests, then they can probably spare the extra memory for us to increase the main RPC message payload limit somewhat.
Our own docs/internals/rpc.html.in states:
Although the protocol itself defines many arbitrary sized data values in the payloads, to avoid denial of service attack there are a number of size limit checks prior to encoding or decoding data. There is a limit on the maximum size of a single RPC message, limit on the maximum string length, and limits on any other parameter which uses a variable length array. These limits can be raised, subject to agreement between client/server, without otherwise breaking compatibility of the RPC data on the wire.
Increasing limits makes sense, as long as we have a sane way to do it while ensuring that on version mismatch, a large packet from the sender doesn't crash an older receiver expecting the smaller limit. In our XDR, should we be converting some of our 'type name<LIST_MAX>' over to 'type name<>' notations, to state that they are effectively unlimited within the larger bounds of the overall packet size? Is 256k for overall packet size still okay for the problem at hand? -- Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org