Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 21:57:08 +0200 From: Mikolaj Golub <to.my.trociny@gmail.com> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com> Subject: Re: hast vs ggate+gmirror sychrnoisation speed Message-ID: <864oc07r6z.fsf@kopusha.home.net> In-Reply-To: <86d3qpqe0m.fsf@zhuzha.ua1> (Mikolaj Golub's message of "Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:06:49 %2B0200") References: <E1PAlxN-000H5x-Eh@dilbert.ticketswitch.com> <86wrp3wj67.fsf@kopusha.home.net> <20101028163036.GA2347@garage.freebsd.pl> <86lj5i3zjt.fsf@kopusha.home.net> <86d3qr3m0b.fsf@kopusha.home.net> <20101101110100.GI2160@garage.freebsd.pl> <86d3qpqe0m.fsf@zhuzha.ua1>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:06:49 +0200 Mikolaj Golub wrote: MG> On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 12:01:00 +0100 Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: PJD>> I like your patch and I agree of course it is better to send keepalive PJD>> packets only when connection is idle. The only thing I'd change is to PJD>> modify QUEUE_TAKE1() macro to take additional argument 'timeout' - if we PJD>> don't want it to time out, we pass 0. Could you modify your patch? MG> Sure :-). Could you look at the updated version? MG> Note. So far I have only tested that hastd with this updated patch is MG> compilable and runnable. I will do normal testing today later when I have MG> access to my test instances and will report about the results. Tested. It works for me. -- Mikolaj Golub
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?864oc07r6z.fsf>