Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 20:06:50 -0500 From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> To: jc@irbs.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com (freebsd-hackers) Subject: Re: The routes from hell Message-ID: <9501110106.AA13707@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199501102333.SAA28259@irbs.com> References: <9501102206.AA12951@blaise.ibp.fr> <199501102333.SAA28259@irbs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Tue, 10 Jan 1995 18:33:45 -0500 (EST), John Capo <jc@irbs.com> said: > The minimum timeout appears to be 10 minutes. Actually, that's the maximum time between timeout runs. If you look at the tree-walk function, you'll see that it takes the minimum of (this node's expiration time) and (what we figured before). The intent is to make it easier to dynamically reconfigure the timeout. Otherwise, if you started up the system, created a few routes, and then changed the timeout value, then the next timeout run wouldn't be scheduled for another four hours, which is not a good situation to be in. So, I guarantee that the tree will always be checked at least once every 10 minutes, and possibly more often if something is expected to time out sooner than that. (The comment is misleading, and dates from an earlier implementation, as does the `rtq' prefix.) -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... wollman@lcs.mit.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance. Opinions not those of| It is a bond more powerful than absence. We like people MIT, LCS, ANA, or NSA| who like Shashish. - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9501110106.AA13707>