On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Osier Yang <jyang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/15/2012 09:42 AM, 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; > > > Seems we have much problem of the array length for the > RPC calls. A similiar problem with VOL_NAME_LIST_MAX: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802357 > > Osier I will need this change as well. I can patch and test. -- Jesse -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list