Re: amandad: #define REP_TIMEOUT (6*60*60)

On 07/05/2017 05:03 PM, Chapman Flack wrote:
> I wonder if it would make more sense to use a shorter timeout
> for this purpose, but one that gets extended every time a reply
> is received, so it would really only time out if replies actually
> stopped arriving. I think there would still be the (configurable!)
> etimeout from amanda.conf enforced on the server end.
> 
> Does that seem reasonable?
> 
> Meanwhile, is there an easy way to work around this problem?
> If I were to edit these 60 DLEs and give them spindle numbers

No, spindle numbers are no help, because spindle conflicts are
not considered in the planner, but only in sendsize, which gets
invoked just once with the whole set of requests, and is the
process amandad is timing out waiting for.

I'll have to work on an amandad patch to make the REP_TIMEOUT
more lenient as long as replies are still (slowly) being received.

-Chap