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:content-type:mime-version:subject:from
	:in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id
	:references:to; q=dns; s=default; b=U2ji3zS91ulHj9YdB9ZAf4nhYQhC
	zdZFHNO3GvEV/2F8eWCUQAmaRMaR19YlJnYF+pCZtyslGGbZpFkVYIb5ti6xaKVz
	ILj3UfTBJ7BL5RDL05wK+m/Qkqa6y+NY5RFY4rUJitjGxdAl+lopLSQfHT2rrTii
	NS+8lIHisAvekLk=
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:content-type:mime-version:subject:from
	:in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id
	:references:to; s=default; bh=ovhLEkVL8ndozY//ne6qXIfghN4=; b=GE
	6pEElnlsQ2PxDsaeE66i9haHdRAoRJGMCiU32HfAhIWfDNZAAk+HrnwhKBNIba1W
	lI4Zk2mBlZ/QiH/w9ogFTSVI9PR48V3i7WPFfRJZUzLTFqllxJMVyVI2uETrW8Fx
	YZ0tEG7o26ioGBtpu4LyUhpKLQKv7PcrW1YkFi/Pk=
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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	smtp3-g21.free.fr
Mime-Version:	1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
Subject:	Re: timeout in LDAP access
From:	Denis Excoffier <cygwin AT Denis-Excoffier DOT org>
In-Reply-To:	<20140617100011.GL23700@calimero.vinschen.de>
Date:	Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:41:35 +0200
Message-Id:	<C462E4F3-1E51-46DC-BD27-BC4786A5E8BB@Denis-Excoffier.org>
References:	<F312783D-AD66-4614-922B-E44403C7E372 AT Denis-Excoffier DOT org> <20140617100011 DOT GL23700 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id s5HMfwmZ013954

Hi Corinna,

On 2014-06-17 12:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 
> So I expect an LDAP_SUCCESS with ldap_count_entries() == 0 and then
> repeat the request.  But the code doesn't expect LDAP_TIMEOUT in this
> case.  Do I have to handle LDAP_TIMEOUT here as well?
LDAP_TIMEOUT can occur there. I can even suppose it occurs more
frequently for the _last_ 100-sid chunk (eg there are 5868 users in
a domain, and timeout occurs after 5800 and the last 68 get lost). But
it can also occur after 27 chunks while about 350000 users are still to be
read in a given domain (yes, that makes about 352700 users in a single domain).

I’m pretty convinced today that 300 is more than enough, and that with 3, only
one or two timeouts are to be expected for an AD with 500000 users and not so
many domains (50 or 100). The flaw is that as soon as the first timeout occurs,
the whole rest of the current domain is skipped, which can be much in some cases.
ldap_get_next_page_s() should perhaps deserve a second chance (with timeout 30s).
After all, this function is called 3527 times (for the same domain).

Also a simple observation: if LDAP_TIMEOUT is not to be expected, what is the
use of this timeval* parameter in ldap_get_next_page_s()?

> I'm wondering if the timeout, at least for enumerating accounts, should
> go away entirely.  In case of a connection problem this could result in
> a hang for about 2 minutes by default I think (LDAP_OPT_PING_LIMIT).
I think i like this (it it works). But in this case, it will not resume
to the next domain, and the whole operation (eg getent) is interrupted?


Regards,

Denis Excoffier.
--
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 -