From owner-freebsd-current Thu Sep 25 17:02:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA23400 for current-outgoing; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 17:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usr04.primenet.com (tlambert@usr04.primenet.com [206.165.6.204]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA23377 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 17:02:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA12137; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 17:02:36 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199709260002.RAA12137@usr04.primenet.com> Subject: Re: TCP timers (Was: Re: new timeout routines) To: dg@root.com Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:02:35 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, ccsanady@bob.scl.ameslab.gov, current@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199709252303.QAA17051@implode.root.com> from "David Greenman" at Sep 25, 97 04:03:57 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >This will increase the load on the timer code with a lot of 20 tick > >timers for a 100Hz softclock. > > "A lot"? There will be exactly _one_. This is not a problem. Please read > again what I wrote and tell me how I was unclear so that I don't make the > same mistake in the future. It was unclear that there would not be one per FIN_2_WAIT per socket; how do you plan to handle these timeouts to give one timer entry? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.