From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jun 5 11:33:17 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9C6214EBD for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 11:33:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id LAA15517; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 11:33:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 11:33:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199906051833.LAA15517@apollo.backplane.com> To: "David Schwartz" Cc: "Peter Wemm" , "Poul-Henning Kamp" , Subject: Re: RE: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? References: <000201beaf7e$e0e8dd10$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG : There is no logical reason for a well-designed web server to enable :keepalives. Of course, they don't hurt anything. : :... : : Agreed. Telnetd is the exception, keepalives are great for it. For :everything else, almost, data timeouts make far more sense. And keepalives :will do nothing, but won't hurt anything. : : As I have said before, any application that does not implement data :timeouts for all states, and does not enable keepalives is BROKEN. You are missing the point, big time. There are hundreds of programmers writing hundreds of servers, most written by third-parties. New ones pop up every day. Nobody is going to go through and make sure all of them turn on keepalives. Nobody is going to go and try to contact all the authors involved to try to get them to implement their own timeouts. There are, in fact, many servers where implementing a timeout is *inappropriate*. ssh, rsh, and telnet for example. nntp is an example of a server where the timeout depends on the use. Some ISP's might want to implement a timeout, others might not. At BEST I decided to *not* have a timeout... people can stay connected and idle for hours if they want. Your 'solution' is no solution at all. You aren't thinking through the problem carefully enough. The Keepalive capability exists for a reason. The original reasons for not turning them on by default all those years ago no longer exist, and the only reasons people come up with now are extremely shallow and uninformed. I have yet to hear a single informed opinion against turning on keepalives. All I hear is mob-mentality stuff: people with opinions not backed by real facts, or people with opinions based on assumptions that are incorrect. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message