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=qSfvn2ErV0G6bKPIKRTwQTYeTDSSuiacz8iweMxfYCe
	LXYIrtDMBF/kHVEVcLbh3/gWamHWBZ71MgoeMee7kEgKRCAZdK+6elQsbQjXOBYq
	aG90VDNj9m4qLj/SjTpLIcqBd0TkUCNtUIWIjdeDMuYv8+ahN9q6rEGKsGU83e+4
	=
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=vN+ivvx97njxXiGx1i4sT/9yq24=; b=llpkQd6LqtPcIKWyc
	c7PLTOtVN5Jyn4MWV6U0ezREFUXNS93CyISA/g8rcsIAolQxse3atw6M6w6ayy8q
	PD/141FM79uPqx+cavfClTxyM4hNhce7dUQZxSEPgL9tv/Yax/yAA7S8vnscyT3o
	6P5JFP2m/hzKwcZmHeK0kcFIfc=
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=4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPAM_BODY autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: etr-usa.com
Message-ID: <53152031.3000208@etr-usa.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 17:37:05 -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>
In-Reply-To: <1686957830.20140303195207@yandex.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On 3/3/2014 08:52, Andrey Repin wrote:
>
> I'd say it again, "sane defaults are better, than alot of options".

Agreed in principle.

However, observe that all network stacks have a bunch of built-in 
timeout options.  They're rarely exposed to the user level, but their 
defaults are typically quite high.  (e.g. 60 seconds for connection 
timeout.)  Over the past 3 decades of TCP/IP, we've discovered that 
networks are weird.

> for comparison, default DNS _roundtrip_ timeout is 2 seconds,

The typical DNS transaction is just 2 UDP packets, one each direction: 
query and response.

I tested a simple, unencrypted LDAP login-and-drop-conn transaction here 
against a real production AD server, and it required 8 packets, 5 of 
which were TCP/IP connection establishment and shutdown.

Add in the encryption, authentication, and authorization overheads of a 
"real" LDAP query, and it could go up to dozens of packets.

That said, it only took about 1 ms to my simple test.  The AD server was 
on the other side of a router, on a fast WAN.

Someone testing this new cygwin1.dll in a domain environment[*] should 
do a packet capture of what Windows sends when the DLL does its new thing.

The captured data isn't terribly interesting here.  What we want to know 
is how many packets it takes, and what the timestamps are on the 
captured frames.  Most especially, the delta between the first and last 
packets, but if there are any significant time gaps, that could be 
interesting, too.


[*] Not me.  The only reason we have any AD around here at all is for 
testing software that authenticates users against third party AD servers.

--
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