On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:32:05 +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: > 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. Yes. I don't really think it's worth doing this. Besides the "logic" would be that we'd call it one-by one, to get the full buffer size for every single VM.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
