On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:49:57 +0400
Eugene Indenbom wrote:
> That would be really hard to achieve as:
> 1. Backend offline state is not known to sdap_handle, but is takes
> part in reconnect logic
> 2. The sdap_handle tear is already overcomplicated and adding
> reconnect logic there would make it
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:49:57 +0400
Eugene Indenbom wrote:
> > Hopefully we can avoid "expiring" connections (see premise above),
> > but I think we need to be even more aggressive, and close
> > connections when they go idle. This way we can free server
> > resources and in most cases we will clo
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:49:57 +0400
Eugene Indenbom wrote:
> PS I still do not understand what is wrong with my patches. Why is it
> not possible just to use them and not to redo the job?
To be honest, I think it is too complex.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
__
On 04/29/2010 10:07 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> Hi Eugene,
> I decided to start a new thread to discuss so that we can close the
> previous parenthesis and concentrate on the problem at hand.
>
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:19:22 +0400
> Eugene Indenbom wrote:
>
>
>> So now we are ready to continue wit
Hi Eugene,
I decided to start a new thread to discuss so that we can close the
previous parenthesis and concentrate on the problem at hand.
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:19:22 +0400
Eugene Indenbom wrote:
> So now we are ready to continue with fixing failover reconnect and
> GSSAPI authentication in L
