On Jun 1, 2006, at 3:56 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
are you saying that there should be higher limit or no limit in IPC-only
messages? I think the message layer can provide another API for that
I don't remember how much burden such a change would be on the IPC layer.
But it seems to me that unless all local messages are uncompressed, it
seems like we need a higher limit at the very least...
Well, we sort-of need a fix for this soon, as the Transition Graph keeps
growing and growing, and XML is pretty noisy, and if I got Andrew right,
a 6-10 node cluster with one or two clones will already bite us in the
heel here.
Short-term, I think Andrew should really consider writing the graph to a
file and having the PE/TE exchange that token only.
i'll be getting started on this shortly
(Implementation detail/tangent: I think it'd be nice if the PE passed a
regular XML graph, but if that then had an include statement refering to
the external file, the PE could always decide how it wanted to pass
this; might be useful for debugging to be able to always write the TE
out or not...)
i'm not sure i see what you're saying. wouldn't it just be easier to always write everything to disk?
side-note... security implications?
Mid-term, we need the IPC limit increased for local messaging.
Long-term, we need a more efficient way of dealing with clones, which
alas will incur changes down to the RA level. (ie, not having to query
for each clone child separately, but sending a single query and getting
them all and such stuff for other ops too.)
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée
--
High Availability & Clustering
SUSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
_______________________________________________________
