curator-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jordan Zimmerman <>
Subject Re: Use-case with lots of child nodes
Date Tue, 31 May 2016 16:30:30 GMT
The ZK jute limit is part of their protocol. Any API usage is limited to 1MB (unless you increase
it). In the case of getChildren(), that would be the value of any overheard for serialization
plus the concatenated length of the children names. The TL;DR is that you shouldn’t create
lots of children in ZK. Redesign your algorithm to spread out the children. This is a ZK issue
and not a Curator issue. 


> On May 31, 2016, at 5:16 AM, Szekeres, Zoltan <>
> Hi Curator users,
> I have a use-case where I need to create a very large number (~70,000)  of child nodes
under a parent. These nodes themselves contain no data and will only have a handful of child
nodes themselves.
> e.g.
> /someparentNode/LotsOfChildNodesHere-1/ACoupleofNodesAtThisLevel
> /someparentNode/LotsOfChildNodesHere-2/ACoupleofNodesAtThisLevel
> ...
> /someparentNode/LotsOfChildNodesHere-70000/ACoupleofNodesAtThisLevel
> I've read ( <>)
there is a limit of 1 MB. But I hit the limit for the getChildren operation around 4 MB. I'm
interested in what's causing the difference in the limit.
> To give more detail I have a primary and secondary use-case:
> My primary use-case includes having watchers on the children of "/someparentNode" and
requesting getChildren for "/someparentNode/LotsOfChildNodesHere-N" (which only has a couple
child nodes).
> My secondary use-case would be requesting the children of "/someparentNode", which would
be only occasionally for reporting purposes (which has a lot of child nodes and probably won't
be as much as 70k nodes, but I hit the limit there).
> I'm looking for answers for the following questions:
> What are the stability issues that you think might occur having lots of nodes under one
node, even if we read them rarely?
> Can I reliable use the "jute.maxbuffer" system property on the client in the future?
> Looking for answers whether the asymmetry of the default value on client side and on
server side is accidental or intentional.
> Any advice is much appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Zoltan Szekeres
> NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have
received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies; do not
disclose, use or act upon the information; and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission
is not intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right,
to the extent permitted under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message
is subject to terms available at the following link:
<> If you cannot access these links, please
notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By messaging with Morgan
Stanley you consent to the foregoing.

View raw message