On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:39:24PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > Originally I could have saved space, but now that sanlock mandates > alignment of 1MB / 8MB, this benefit has gone. Is there in fact any > compelling reason to allow either num_hosts or max_hosts to be > configurable at all ? If not, then I'd just remove this and > just hardcode the sanlock standard 2000. I had the same thought, but was hesitant to suggest it since I've never done any testing with num_hosts of 2000. Here's what I'll do, I'll make 0 num_hosts default to 2000, just like 0 max_hosts does, so you can pass in 0 for both values. I'll do some testing with that; I suspect it will work fine. Dave -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list