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

propolis_client::api::InstanceProperties has unused fields #530

Closed
gjcolombo opened this issue Sep 26, 2023 · 1 comment
Closed

propolis_client::api::InstanceProperties has unused fields #530

gjcolombo opened this issue Sep 26, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@gjcolombo
Copy link
Contributor

#[derive(Clone, Debug, Deserialize, PartialEq, Eq, Serialize, JsonSchema)]
pub struct InstanceProperties {
/// Unique identifier for this Instance.
pub id: Uuid,
/// Human-readable name of the Instance.
pub name: String,
/// Free-form text description of an Instance.
pub description: String,
/// ID of the image used to initialize this Instance.
pub image_id: Uuid,
/// ID of the bootrom used to initialize this Instance.
pub bootrom_id: Uuid,
/// Size of memory allocated to the Instance, in MiB.
pub memory: u64,
/// Number of vCPUs to be allocated to the Instance.
pub vcpus: u8,
}

The image_id and bootrom_id fields in this struct are, AFAICT, totally unused by anyone. The description field is also not used by the control plane (it passes "Test description" in all cases). We should remove these fields if possible to reduce the time spent initializing them and sending them around.

pfmooney added a commit to pfmooney/propolis that referenced this issue Oct 6, 2023
When tungstenite was updated to 0.20.x, the structure of the buffering
parameters exposed by its websocket configuration changed significantly.
The parameters chosen can cause `WriteBufferFull` errors if enough
output accumulates in the history buffer to be sent in a message which
exceeds the unnecessarily small `max_write_buffer_size`.

Using the configuration defaults, which feature an unbounded
`max_write_buffer_size`, should provide acceptable behavior.

Fixes oxidecomputer#530
@gjcolombo
Copy link
Contributor Author

Tracked more thoroughly by #723.

@gjcolombo gjcolombo closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Jul 30, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant