[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_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