From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jun 4 9:14:10 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E0B14D34 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:14:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA04588; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 18:12:28 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: David Malone Cc: Pierre Beyssac , Matthew Dillon , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jun 1999 17:06:54 BST." <19990604170654.A8800@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 18:12:28 +0200 Message-ID: <4586.928512748@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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. -- 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