Freezing v3-2-stable (2nd edition)
bj at SerNet.DE
Tue Apr 22 09:00:22 GMT 2008
On 2008-04-21 at 21:56 +0200 Volker Lendecke sent off:
> Sure. I meant to try to default both to the "ldap timeout"
yes, I understood you this way.But the current "ldap timeout"
default IS the "infinit 15s" that I mentioned. And as we currently do
not distinguish ldap timeout for connection and for operation we have
to wait so long for the next ldap host to be asked. Of course the
timeout is feasible for ldap operations but not for connection
timeouts, which even multiply if we have to fall back to the 3rd or
4th ldap server.
> in case this is set explicitly. If no explicit ldap timeout
> is set, I agree that a shorter connect timeout has benefits,
> but I don't want to change behaviour for those who
> consciously did set that parameter to something.
why don't you want to change the default here especially if the
proposed default is obviously more useful?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20080422/43195f4a/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical