Hi Matvz,

On Sat, 31 Aug 2013, Matevz Tadel wrote:
> Thanks for bearing with us through all this thread :)
Actually, thank you for bearing with my vacation :-)

> Keep in mind that if we force creation of sockets for each client, it might not
> make much sense to keep them alive ... or old, non-used sockets can get reused
> by new clients? Will this be properly reported in the monitoring 'u' stream?
I do agree, for long-lived servers we do need an idle time-out on the 
client. We can't depend that servers will have their timeouts enabled and 
if they do that the timeout value is decent for the proxy server. The 
non-used sockets cannot be easily resused because they are tied to a 
security context so you would need to figure out if there are any 
conflicts. So, I'd say that they can't be practically reused. If they are 
not resused then the 'u' stream question is immaterial.

> Andy, within the discussion I also asked for 't' stream to be flushed on close
> event. This way monitoring can be done with the file even though the session
> still remains opened for unknown period of time.
That's a pretty hefty request. Let me look into it.

>> Lukasz, what's the possibility of adding this?
>
> I'd also like to ask for this special case ... if timeouts are set to 0, the all
> sockets used by a client should be closed on the spot. In the old client there
> were weird interferences that practically made sockets live for hours, sometimes
> days, even if the timeout was set to 10 minutes.
Actually, I wouldn't do that. The old client had various issues with the 
timeout code and was one reason I suggested t Lukasz to not implement it. 
I suspect he can implement it without these kinds of issues.

Andy

########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-DEV list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-DEV&A=1