On 08/23/2012 11:00 AM, Liam Gretton wrote:
On 22/08/2012 22:14, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
But what's the point of specifying multiple targets in the uri option if it doesn't fall through to subsequent ones when the first is not contactable?
Have I completely missed the point of the documentation?
The point is that your condition is *not* a server unreachable.
There's obviously some subtlety I'm missing here. How would you describe it instead?
Current failover only deals with failures/timeouts of connect(2). I don't think handling your case using failover is appropriate. Your case should be handled by removing the non-responding URI from the list.
I don't understand the difference. If a server is unavailable for whatever reason (offline, firewalled, switched off, nothing listening on the specified port), then connect() will timeout as you describe.
When connect(2) times out the code behaves as expected.
Which failures are the current mechanism actually expected to cope with that don't include a server being unreachable?