X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	q=dns; s=default; b=kY8Fmi0qkpWPEHgeWUscoDW1U4aB+99JbLsgxZtibdq
	D2kMkwqA6tFDqbNGHtSf+zAqFUsOA0zEqaUHReEIqyZxripMb6hkdHES/hgpbrsr
	TyoCxjeLdk23R8jFvPIHpZhGEJVajK3zoxKHtCVvZKIR67ofVZfSLz9OLzDBoXKg
	=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	s=default; bh=PzFUr2mf9Pkj+fPfbuDBGrhWHVQ=; b=xrlWd8Hz4+MPLp7o3
	lHf0nYkaiMXLudFwBiQrvWCIDFk/cBDF56ukUJAy9Cs3wVNPZmEqueZOa7/+3Rtw
	JMDP7qmXMZE+A4DqhmNhy2qLKdVbfuiYbk2fNFcD6gGyrcL8DuKo2kCbG/cVJo4B
	FZT0Jml7Z5i1D1oAy9+0+UwdBM=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	etr-usa.com
Message-ID:	<53155F96.3060400@etr-usa.com>
Date:	Mon, 03 Mar 2014 22:07:34 -0700
From:	Warren Young <warren AT etr-usa DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Testers needed: New passwd/group handling in Cygwin
References:	<20140227094951 DOT GD2246 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <loom DOT 20140227T134714-188 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20140227134632 DOT GG2246 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <765945729 DOT 20140228031219 AT yandex DOT ru> <20140228120748 DOT GN2246 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <87y50vc910 DOT fsf AT Rainer DOT invalid> <20140228201047 DOT GC2381 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <CAKf2h5TjyeMxuw=XkqoGMC8A_f+LpSzcx5nof5ViUBQ-0sYXFg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20140228210804 DOT GE2381 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <CAKf2h5QbafQq25jndf8RdDGWsp_MMfziBep2Pe1H7rA+OmOCdA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20140303092114 DOT GA26619 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <1686957830 DOT 20140303195207 AT yandex DOT ru> <53152031 DOT 3000208 AT etr-usa DOT com> <397967999 DOT 20140304053603 AT yandex DOT ru>
In-Reply-To:	<397967999.20140304053603@yandex.ru>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

On 3/3/2014 18:36, Andrey Repin wrote:
> Once TCP session is established, it remains,
> until closed or dropped on either end of the wire.

Have you done the packet capture to prove that Windows does in fact keep 
the LDAP connection to the AD server up continually, or are you making 
an assumption?

> Amount of packets doesn't matter

Even if the connection stays up all the time, an LDAP lookup is almost 
certain to take more than one packet each way.

Packet round trip time (RTT) varies by orders of magnitude among 
networks, from sub-ms on a fast, quiet LAN to on the order of a full 
second for a slow WAN.

Since the number of packets is a function of the number of round trips, 
a network with an RTT of 0.9s will take more than the proposed 3 seconds 
to process a query that requires 4 round trips, even if the processing 
delay on either end is essentially 0.

You have to measure it to find out.

And yes, I have personally used networks with an RTT > 1.0s.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -