Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:32:40 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: "Matthew Hunt" <mph@astro.caltech.edu>, "Andre Oppermann" <oppermann@pipeline.ch> Cc: <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? Message-ID: <000001bead3f$711c0840$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to> In-Reply-To: <19990602140108.A47013@wopr.caltech.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> That's how keepalives work. My understanding is that David Schwartz's > comment referred to application idle timeouts, not keepalives. Correct. Only the application can know whether the most logical means of dealing with the TCP connection is by a keepalive, data timeout, or other rule. Applications that have no data timeouts and do not enable keepalives are broken, period. I like the idea of having a ridiculously high keepalive time (like 1 week) even for connections that don't request them, and reverting to normal keepalive times for applications that do. That will help workaround broken applications. DS PS: Moved to chat since this is starting to look more like a holy war. ;) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000001bead3f$711c0840$021d85d1>