On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 08:42:35PM -0500, 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;
/* Upper limit on lists of storage vol names. */ const REMOTE_STORAGE_VOL_NAME_LIST_MAX = 1024;
We have to think about what the compatibility implications are for this kind of change. eg what is the behaviour when old client talks to new server, and vica-verca. It might be fine, but I'd like someone to enumerate the before & after behaviour in all combinations.
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 :|
Sorry, I accidentally top-posted my reply originally. Just to clarify, you would like to see: v0.9.10 pre-patch client talk to v0.9.10 patch server v0.9.10 patch client talk to v0.9.10 pre-patch server Would the test code I used in my cover letter be sufficient? If so, I could probably test this fairly easily and quickly today. -- Jesse