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:	Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:40:00 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
	noboru.obata.ar@...achi.com, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.22] TCP: Make TCP_RTO_MAX a variable (take 2)

David Miller wrote:
> From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:55:10 -0700
> 
> 
>>Fine, but so?  I suspect the point of the patch is to provide a
>>lower cap on the accumulated backoff so data starts flowing over the
>>connection within that lower cap once the link is
>>restored/failed-over.
> 
> 
> The backoff is there for a reason.

I'm not disputing the general value of the backoff, nor about the value of an 
initial value of 60 seconds.  In terms of avoiding congestive collapse one does 
indeed want the exponential backoff.  I'm just in agreement with the person from 
Hitachi that allowing someone to tweak the backoff has a certain value.

60 seconds is already a trade-off between a pure (non capped) exponential 
backoff and capping the value.

rick
-
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