Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 17:25:02 +0100 From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? Message-ID: <9906041725.aa11603@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jun 1999 18:12:28 %2B0200." <4586.928512748@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In message <19990604170654.A8800@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>, David Malone writes: > > >It might be nice to have two keepalive timeouts like Nate suggested. > >You'd have a short one, which applies if the application turns on > >keepalive or you have alwayskeepalive on. Then you'd have a long > >one, which applies to all connections regardless. Then: > > Then you might as well implement per socket adjustable keepalives. While this is probably a good idea anyway, you still have the problem of setting these timeouts within applications for which you don't have source and for which the current default isn't useful. I guess this is the reason we have alwayskeepalive - if all applications set keepalive when they needed it we wouldn't have it at all. If you had per socket adjustable keepalives you'd also have to provide a tool which could set the keepalive timeout on a running process to get the sort of effect provided by alwayskeepalive. Having two timeouts would just be a compromise between these? David. 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? <9906041725.aa11603>