Md Lazreg wrote: > It is possible that the previous Windows behavior is correct but that > is not the behavior I want.
I think you are incorrect about that. > I want the same behavior as UNIX which in my opinion is what my clients > would want. My clients can connect to a set of servers in a raw, if one > is not available for whatever reason I want them to move to the next one > instead of having to wait the whole timeout before trying the next server. I agree. But that's not what your code does now. What your code does is stops trying the first server. What you want it to do is start trying the second server. Here's probably what you want: 1) Start trying to connect to the first server. 2) Wait a short amount of time to see if we have a connection. 3) If we have a connection, we are done. We succeed. 4) If we don't have a connection, add another attempt to another server, if possible. 5) If all connection possibilities have failed, stop. We fail. 6) Go to step 2. Note that this does not require the change you made, which allows you to detect soft failures. If you get a soft failure, there is no reason to abort the attempt -- it still might succeed. And why would you want to wait 60 seconds or so if a server is not responding at all if you have another server you could try? > Thanks for your help. You're welcome. I'm glad you got it working the way you think you want it. But I don't think it's working the way you should want it. There is no rush to abort a connection attempt that might ultimately succeed, no matter how unlikely. Just don't wait for it -- keep going, and if it fails, no loss. If it succeeds later, you still win. DS ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
