It's an interesting idea... can you explain more why you think it would be good to have a shorter timeout in the case of a longer list of servers?
Thanks, C On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Rakesh R <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > > > In ClientCnxn, 'readTimeOut' is calculated as follows: > > readTimeOut = sessionTimeOut * 2 / 3; // here it is not considering the > server list. If the server list grows more than 3, it will not giving a fair > chance to retry to all the servers(in worst case). > > > > Can we think of changing the 'readTimeOut logic' by using the > serverslist.length instead of constant/magic number '3'. > > > > For example:- > > I have 5 servers and client sessionTimeOut=120secs > > > > readTimeOut = 120 * 2 / 3 and is 80secs > > > > In this case, the it takes 80secs for the first timeout if the connected > server is not responding. This is large time, if we consdier the serverlist, > it can retry to next server immediately in <50secs. > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Rakesh > > > >
