* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-06-11 17:03]: > > 1. Do you adjust the current value for a timeout upwards at all? > > (Say, to 60s?) It looks like we don't do any kind of exponential > > backoff. > > Right now there's no dynamic adjustment of the timeout. I figured we > could add this down the road later on, if so desired. Okay.
> > 2. Why is MAX_TIMEOUT_COUNT 3? 3 x 30s is 90s--David's recommended > > 120s with the current code, so I'm curious if we have a > > justification for this setting. Should MAX_TIMEOUT_COUNT also be > > tunable? > > I pulled this number out of thin air. I missed David's reccomendation > about 120s. Was that in a bug report or a discussion on this list? > > MAX_TIMEOUT_COUNT is tuneable. You can set PKG_CLIENT_TIMEOUT in the > environemnt to adjust the duration we wait before a timeout occurs. > PKG_TIMEOUT_MAX sets the number of timeouts before we give up. > > Would you like me to set the default to 4 instead? I think we should error out at 120s. > > 3. How do pkgsend and pkgrecv fare in this new world of > > TransferInterruptedException? > > Both the timeout and its exception handling are controlled by the client > code. I was under the impression that we didn't have any of that in > place for pkgsend or pkgrecv. I had thought that at least pkgrecv used some of the same retrieval code--versioned_urlopen() was what I was thinking of. But defer it, if not. - Stephen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
