From owner-cvs-all Wed Jul 17 22:35:27 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3CA37B400; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:35:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from patrocles.silby.com (d37.as7.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net [169.207.128.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 673D043E6A; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:35:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: from patrocles.silby.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6I5ddcv084545; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 00:39:39 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: from localhost (silby@localhost) by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g6I5dcLA084542; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 00:39:38 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: patrocles.silby.com: silby owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 00:39:38 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack To: Matthew Dillon Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet tcp_timer.h In-Reply-To: <200207180445.g6I4jkD4006497@apollo.backplane.com> Message-ID: <20020718001924.J83856-100000@patrocles.silby.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Ok, how about this: > > #define TCPTV_MIN ( hz / 50 <= 3 ? 3 : hz / 50 ) /* minimum allowable value */ > > 20 milliseconds or 3 ticks, whichever is greater. The idea > being that 20 ms compensates for operating system variability > and/or polling issues. > > -Matt I'm starting to warm up to it, though a little higher would be nice. What's really bugging me is the subsequent retransmissions... perhaps we could constrain them such that the second or third had lower bounds as well? I still think retransmissions at: 30 60 120 240 480 would be bad, but maybe: 30 530 1530 (doubling from there) wouldn't be so bad. If you did that, then you wouldn't have to worry about significantly shortening the overall retranmission timeout period, or worry about repeatedly retransmitting before the link has time to recover from whatever caused the original and the first retransmission to be lost. Is that making any sense? I should probably get some sleep before I comment more. :) Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message