Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:32:12 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Matthew Hunt <mph@astro.caltech.edu>, kip@lyris.com, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? Message-ID: <22636.928269132@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Jun 1999 21:20:45 BST." <19990601212045.A13137@bell.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <19990601212045.A13137@bell.maths.tcd.ie>, David Malone writes: >On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 02:15:05PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote: >> > Can people live with a one week TCP keepalive as default ? >> >> Compromise. I like it. One week is certainly adequate for me. If I >> leave a link 'active' for longer than that w/out activity, I deserve to >> lose the link > >Surely that violates POLA? That upsets people who have keepalive >turned on already and find 1 week is way too long. For instance, >we use keepalive to get rid of stuck netscapes, and we'd probably >run out of swap or mbufs if it went up to a week. We just managed >by putting this in rc.local: > >sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive=1 My intent was an "implementation" which would set: net.inet.tcp.keepidle: 86400 net.inet.tcp.keepintvl: 64800 net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive: 1 Leaving people to set whatever they want for a local policy. All I'm talking about is what our default should be... -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! 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?22636.928269132>