On 2006-05-31T07:37:34, Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. (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...) 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" _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/