le() dance. ]
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 15:53
> To: Tim Potter; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: how to deal with STATUS_PIPE_BUSY ?
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 11:46:51AM -0700, Tim Potter wr
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 11:46:51AM -0700, Tim Potter wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 11:17:34AM -0700, Ben Johnson wrote:
> > Do you think I just need to wait a little while then resend the request?
> > Is it just that NT needs some time to rearrange its buffers or something?
> > That doesn't mak
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 11:17:34AM -0700, Ben Johnson wrote:
> This is part of a packet dump that ends with the STATUS_PIPE_BUSY. If I
> remove the user from just a few groups then I never get the
> STATUS_PIPE_BUSY message and the second request goes through. But
> nothing else (that I see so
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 07:27:44PM -0700, Tim Potter wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 06:59:31PM -0700, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
> > The problem comes when, after I succeed in getting a very large list of
> > group names, I ask for another. The second request fails and I get an
> > NT error code of
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 06:59:31PM -0700, Ben Johnson wrote:
> The problem comes when, after I succeed in getting a very large list of
> group names, I ask for another. The second request fails and I get an
> NT error code of STATUS_PIPE_BUSY. Does anyone know what that means?
The latest schoo
I'm working on very old code. I mostly need protocol advice.
this thing is working a lot better than it used to now but it's not
perfect. I discovered that if I make a request for a very large number
of very long group names that I'll wind up getting a "Transaction
Response[transaction continua
