During guest migration, if the domain xml is bigger than 16384 which is easily possible for a guest with good number of disks, message encode fails for xdr_remote_domain_migrate_perform3_ret(). So, Increase the COOKIE_MAX to STRING_MAX value. Signed-off-by: Shivaprasad G Bhat <shivaprasadbhat(a)gmail.com&gt; --- src/remote/remote_protocol.x | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/remote/remote_protocol.x b/src/remote/remote_protocol.x index 1f9d583..ab9b83d 100644 --- a/src/remote/remote_protocol.x +++ b/src/remote/remote_protocol.x @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ const REMOTE_VCPUINFO_MAX = 16384; const REMOTE_CPUMAPS_MAX = 8388608; /* Upper limit on migrate cookie. */ -const REMOTE_MIGRATE_COOKIE_MAX = 16384; +const REMOTE_MIGRATE_COOKIE_MAX = 4194304; /* Upper limit on lists of networks. */ const REMOTE_NETWORK_LIST_MAX = 16384; -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list

On 28.05.2014 14:42, Shivaprasad G Bhat wrote: >During guest migration, if the domain xml is bigger than 16384 which is >easily possible for a guest with good number of disks, message encode fails >for xdr_remote_domain_migrate_perform3_ret(). >So, Increase the COOKIE_MAX to STRING_MAX value. > >Signed-off-by: Shivaprasad G Bhat <shivaprasadbhat(a)gmail.com&gt; >--- > src/remote/remote_protocol.x | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >diff --git a/src/remote/remote_protocol.x b/src/remote/remote_protocol.x >index 1f9d583..ab9b83d 100644 >--- a/src/remote/remote_protocol.x >+++ b/src/remote/remote_protocol.x >@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ const REMOTE_VCPUINFO_MAX = 16384; > const REMOTE_CPUMAPS_MAX = 8388608; > > /* Upper limit on migrate cookie. */ >-const REMOTE_MIGRATE_COOKIE_MAX = 16384; >+const REMOTE_MIGRATE_COOKIE_MAX = 4194304; > > /* Upper limit on lists of networks. */ > const REMOTE_NETWORK_LIST_MAX = 16384; > >-- >libvir-list mailing list &gt;libvir-list(a)redhat.com >https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list > I think this change is okay. I mean we have changed such size limits in the past and so far we haven't heard of any problems. And really, if you're doing old -> old migration, then it's the source that fails. If you're doing old -> new, then again, it's the source that fails. But doing new -> new is just fine. Then, one trouble might be new -> old but since we are checking the string limits, we're okay too. ACK, but I'll wait a while with pushing and let others share their opinion