netdev - Re: [PATCH 2.6.22] TCP: Make TCP_RTO

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:12:03 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	noboru.obata.ar@...achi.com
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.22] TCP: Make TCP_RTO_MAX a variable (take 2)

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:

> From: OBATA Noboru <noboru.obata.ar@...achi.com>
> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:59:50 +0900 (JST)
> 
> > How do you think TCP timeouts in Linux can adapt to such changes
> > in network environment?
> 
> I'm honestly not interested in discussing this any more
> and Ian has even showed that the RFCs state that if we have
> a maximum it must be at least 60.
> 
> So really, there is no chance of merging a TCP_RTO_MAX
> decreasing patch, sorry.

One question is why the RTO gets so large that it limits failover?

If Linux TCP is working correctly,  RTO should be srtt + 2*rttvar

So either there is a huge srtt or variance, or something is going
wrong with RTT estimation.  Given some reasonable maximums of
Srtt = 500ms and rttvar = 250ms, that would cause RTO to be 1second.



-- 
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html