On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 05:29:52PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 17:19:53 +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 05:07:40PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> > On 05/23/2017 04:35 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>> > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 04:23:30PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> > > > + * Note that this API is prone to exceeding maximum RPC if
>> querying
>> > > > too many VMs
>> > > > + * with lots of statistics. It's suggested to query in
batches of
>> > > > 10VMs, which
>> > > > + * should be good enough for VMs with 3000 disks + networks.
>> > > > + *
>> > >
>> > > Coming to think about it... Why don't we just batch this
>> ourselves under
>> > > the hood and just return the merged result?
>> >
>> > Because:
>> >
>> >
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-May/msg00088.html
>> >
>>
>> Not on the RPC level, the API would just be syntax sugar to
>> virDomainListGetStats() if a flag was passed
>> (e.g.
>> VIR_DOMAIN_GET_ALL_STATS_I_DONT_REALLY_CARE_IF_THIS_IS_DONE_IN_ONE_LIBVIRT_CALL)
>>
>
> Also compared to a full fragmentation of the returned data, this would
> result into a worst-case-scenario memory usage of MAX_SIZE *
> NVMS_QUERIED_IN_ORIGINAL_CALL, when compared to an unbounded memory use
> of the full fragmentation approach.
If I get what you are saying, then the same would happen if the mgmt app
(or client) implemented it themselves. We would basically just provide
the guessing logic.
That's quite exact. I mean the word 'guessing'. We can't really provide
reliable way of dealing with what you're suggesting (unless we cut the
limit really small) nor we can guarantee atomicity. Therefore I think it
would be a waste of time to work on this. Yes, it can be done, but the
benefits are pretty small IMO.
Michal