Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:37:03 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: dg@root.com, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: "John R. LoVerso" <loverso@sitaranetworks.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? Message-ID: <v04011707b37dd9ab90d2@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <199906041824.LAA29444@implode.root.com> References: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jun 1999 19:56:02 %2B0200." <4932.928518962@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:24 AM -0700 6/4/99, David Greenman wrote: > someone else wrote: >> >> I still think the right thing is: >> default to keepalives. >> set the timeout to a week. > > I don't support increasing the default timeout. That would cause > problems for a lot of server systems that rely on the relatively > short two hour default. The best I think you could do would be to > increase it to something like 12-24 hours as a default, but even > that might be problematical. This may be a stupid question, but I haven't shied away from asking stupid questions before... Do we have to consider this as an "on/off" switch? Could we have it an "on/off/extended" switch? (or is the value stored as a bit somewhere, so that it can only be on or off?). What I'm thinking is that anything that explicitly asks for "on" would get the current 2-hour timeout, but that the "extended" setting would result in a 7-day timeout. We'd then set the system default to "extended" instead of either on or off. Or would this break things in subtle ways? --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 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?v04011707b37dd9ab90d2>