Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Default distribution buffer size and max process limit are unintentionally excessive #1659

Closed
michaelklishin opened this issue Aug 2, 2018 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1660
Closed

Comments

@michaelklishin
Copy link
Member

As of 118b448 they are 10 times greater than the values we discussed. We are yet to confirm from the contributor of the change but this is unlikely to be intentional.

The distribution buffer default, for example, can explain some of the "absurd distribution buffer size" runtime terminations that @dcorbacho and I have seen in the last few months.

Per discussion with @lukebakken. Originally reported by Chris Friesen.

@michaelklishin michaelklishin added this to the 3.7.8 milestone Aug 2, 2018
michaelklishin added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 2, 2018
…others

They were bumped to x10 the values in 118b448
by mistake.

Kudos to Chris Friesen for reporting this.

Closes #1659.
@michaelklishin
Copy link
Member Author

Curiously in practice the max number of atoms wasn't bumped (tested with 3.7.6 and 3.7.7 nodes) but the distribution buffer was.

@michaelklishin michaelklishin changed the title Default distribution buffer size, atom table size limit and max process limit are unintentionally excessive Default distribution buffer size and max process limit are unintentionally excessive Aug 2, 2018
michaelklishin added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 2, 2018
…others

They were bumped to x10 the values in 118b448
by mistake.

Kudos to Chris Friesen for reporting this.

Closes #1659.

(cherry picked from commit 594dc10)
@gerhard
Copy link
Contributor

gerhard commented Aug 3, 2018

Ouch! That was my ego, definitely not a cool mistake.

Thank you Chris for spotting this & @michaelklishin for turning it around so quickly.

@michaelklishin
Copy link
Member Author

@gerhard no worries. I introduced a typo while fixing this 😅 but luckily Chris spotted that, too 🥇

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants