Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:06:54 +0100 From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> To: Pierre Beyssac <beyssac@enst.fr> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive on as default ? Message-ID: <19990604170654.A8800@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <19990604153202.A17563@enst.fr>; from Pierre Beyssac on Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 03:32:02PM %2B0200 References: <20883.928262460@critter.freebsd.dk> <199906012202.PAA84865@apollo.backplane.com> <19990604153202.A17563@enst.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 03:32:02PM +0200, Pierre Beyssac wrote: > I don't see what this fuss is all about. If for _some_ big servers > there are many dead connections around after a while (*), why don't > THEY use a sysctl at boot-time to change the default state, rather > than impose on the rest of us a change that might not be as innocuous > as it looks? 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: 1) To get the traditional behavior you set the long one to infinity and turn alwayskeepalive off. 2) To get the sort of behavior that phk is advocating, without upsetting the rest of us you leave alwayskeepalive off and then set the long one to 1 week. 3) For those of us with alwayskeepalive on, we'd get the traditional value of a few hours. Would this be a useful or a silly addition? David. 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?19990604170654.A8800>