Am 12.03.25 um 14:27 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > In some situations, e.g. having a large resource mapping, the UI can > generate a request that is bigger than the current limit of 64KiB. > > Our files in pmxcfs can grow up to 1 MiB, so theoretically, a single > mapping can grow to that size. In practice, a single entry will have > much less. In #6230, a user has a mapping with about ~130KiB. > > Increase the limit to 512KiB so we have a bit of buffer left.
s/buffer/headroom/ ? > > We have to also increase the 'rbuf_max' size here, otherwise the request > will fail (since the buffer is too small for the request). > Since the post limit and the rbuf_max are tightly coupled, let it > reflect that in the code. To do that sum the post size + max header > size there. > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csa...@proxmox.com> > --- > sending as RFC because: > * not sure about the rbuf_max calculation, but we have to increase it > when we increase $limit_max_post. (not sure how much is needed exactly) > * ther are alternative ways to deal with that, but some of those are vastly > more work: > - optimize the pci mapping to reduce the number of bytes we have to > send (e.g. by reducing the property names, or somehow magically > detect devices that belong together) > - add a new api for the mappings that can update the entries without > sending the whole mapping again (not sure if we can make this > backwards compatible) > - ignore the problem and simply tell the users to edit the file > manually (I don't like this one...) > > also, I tried to benchmark this, but did not find a tool that does this > in a good way (e.g. apachebench complained about ssl, and i couldn't get > it to work right). @Thomas you did such benchmarks laft according to git > log, do you remember what you used then? argh, my commit message back then looks like I tried to write what I used but then fubmled (or got knocked on the head) and sent it out unfinished. To my defence, Wolfgang applied it ;P I'm not totally sure what I used back then, might have been something custom-made too. FWIW, recently I used oha [0] and found it quite OK, albeit I did not try it with POST data, but one can define the method and pass a request body from CLI argument directly or a file, and it has a flag to allow "insecure" TLS certs. [0]: https://github.com/hatoo/oha > @@ -1891,7 +1891,7 @@ sub accept_connections { > $self->{conn_count}++; > $reqstate->{hdl} = AnyEvent::Handle->new( > fh => $clientfh, > - rbuf_max => 64*1024, > + rbuf_max => $limit_max_post + ($limit_max_headers * > $limit_max_header_size), The header part is wrong as the header limits are independent, i.e., the request must have less than $limit_max_headers separate headers and all those together must be smaller than $limit_max_header_size. So just adding $limit_max_header_size is enough, no multiplication required. > timeout => $self->{timeout}, > linger => 0, # avoid problems with ssh - really needed ? > on_eof => sub { _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
