Freezing v3-2-stable (2nd edition)

Björn Jacke 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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the samba-technical mailing list