--4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 05:21:24PM +0200, Bj=F6rn Jacke wrote:
> On 2008-04-21 at 17:06 +0200 Volker Lendecke sent off:
> > Can we make the specific timeouts to default to "ldap
> > timeout", so that we don't change existing installations?

>=20
> having the "ldap connection timeout" *not* the default of "ldap=20
> timeout" is in fact a big advantage. In case of a setup=20
> like
>=20
> passdb backend =3D ldapsam:"ldap://unreachable:389 ldap://reachable:389"
>=20
> we (or better said the LDAP libs) would timeout after infinit 15s=20
> to fall back to ldap://reachable:389 which might be too long for=20
> clients waiting for us to answer. Telling the LDAP libs to wait for 2s=20
> for an initial connection atempt reply and then try the next host=20
> makes the fallback mechanism work better IMHO.


Sure. I meant to try to default both to the "ldap timeout"
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.

Volker

--4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIDPFnUzqjrWwMRl0RAgnxAJ9iAKcchaEte4weLT7tSz S/1FWF9ACff4wy
l59Jaf+Y8SpaMEi2uha8XQs=
=sGQ+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY--