[Spread-users] Spread daemon crashing
Rick Cobb
rcobb at KnowNow.com
Thu Feb 14 13:34:52 EST 2008
Jonathan Stanton wrote:
> Increaseing the size of private names is also something people have used in the past, but
> I've had fewer reports of success.
We've configured our spread installations (we have a couple dozen) using:
#define MAX_GROUP_NAME (1+MAX_PRIVATE_NAME+1+MAX_PROC_NAME)
#define MAX_PRIVATE_NAME 30 /* largest possible size of private_name field of SP_connect() */
#define MAX_PROC_NAME 100 /* largest possible size of process name of daemon */
for quite some time (3.17.3, about 3 years in several dozen QA & production deployments).
We've recently expanded this (only a month, 4.0.0, only in small QA configurations) to:
#define MAX_PRIVATE_NAME 128
#define MAX_PROC_NAME 256
This hasn't been intended as a way to support large messages, but more to ease local configuration. We use hostnames in many of these, and our customer configurations often have long FQDNs as their hostnames.
I guess I should call this "a report of success", but you've piqued my curiosity: do you have reports of failures? In the absence of playing with MAX_SCATTER_ELEMENTS, etc?
Thanks --
-- Rick Cobb
More information about the Spread-users
mailing list