Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 12:51:16 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? Message-ID: <199906011851.MAA14756@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <20883.928262460@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20883.928262460@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Considering the number of hosts on the net today, which come and > go with no warning and with dynamic IP assignments, I would propose > that we disregard what the "old farts" felt about TCP keepalives, > and enable the sysctl net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive as default. Seeing as the amount of traffic and congestion in the Internet, I propose we diregard what the 'old fart' PHK says and not increase the congestion with the use of keepalives. :) The 'old farts' did a good job of designing a system that happens to work better than all of the systems the 'young farts' were able to design. PHK's arguments are specious, since *any* traffic when the link is congested is more congestion. > The argument against is that this will increas trafic and keep > dynamic lines up when they should otherwise have been allowed to > fall down. > > The former argument doesn't hold water, since we're talking about > a TCP segment per hour (or less) per connection. That's still traffic, and congestion is congestion. On one systems that isn't a lot, but with alot of connections it can add up to a significant amount of bandwidth. > The second argument falls on the same reasoning in my book, I don't > know of any on-demand lines with a timeout longer than 10 minutes > anyway. You don't know of any, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906011851.MAA14756>