On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:31:32AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 03/14/2012 07:42 PM, 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. > correctly. See this comment: > > /* Maximum length of a memory peek buffer message. > * Note applications need to be aware of this limit and issue multiple > * requests for large amounts of data. > */ > const REMOTE_DOMAIN_MEMORY_PEEK_BUFFER_MAX = 65536; > > That is, you cannot send any RPC with more than 64k data, because . > With a cap of 256 pool names, that means each pool name can be (on > average) about 256 bytes before you hit the RPC cap. Not quite right, you meant to look at virnetrpcprotocol.x: /* Size of message payload */ const VIR_NET_MESSAGE_PAYLOAD_MAX = 262120; Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list