X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.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@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.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@etr-usa.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@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Testers needed: New passwd/group handling in Cygwin
References: <20140227094951.GD2246@calimero.vinschen.de> <loom.20140227T134714-188@post.gmane.org> <20140227134632.GG2246@calimero.vinschen.de> <765945729.20140228031219@yandex.ru> <20140228120748.GN2246@calimero.vinschen.de> <87y50vc910.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <20140228201047.GC2381@calimero.vinschen.de> <CAKf2h5TjyeMxuw=XkqoGMC8A_f+LpSzcx5nof5ViUBQ-0sYXFg@mail.gmail.com> <20140228210804.GE2381@calimero.vinschen.de> <CAKf2h5QbafQq25jndf8RdDGWsp_MMfziBep2Pe1H7rA+OmOCdA@mail.gmail.com> <20140303092114.GA26619@calimero.vinschen.de> <1686957830.20140303195207@yandex.ru> <53152031.3000208@etr-usa.com> <397967999.20140304053603@yandex.ru>
In-Reply-To: <397967999.20140304053603@yandex.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

