[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070416.121746.39159168.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jheffner@....edu
Cc: coroberti@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
greearb@...delatech.com
Subject: Re: TCP connection stops after high load.
From: John Heffner <jheffner@....edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:11:07 -0400
> I don't know if this qualifies as an unconditional bug. The commit
> above was actually a bugfix so that the limits were not higher than
> total memory on some systems, but had the side effect that it made them
> even smaller on your particular configuration. Also, having initial
> sysctl values that are conservatively small probably doesn't qualify as
> a bug (for patching stable trees). You might ask the -stable
> maintainers if they have a different opinion.
>
> For most people, 2.6.19 and 2.6.20 work fine. For those who really care
> about the tcp_mem values (are using a substantial fraction of physical
> memory for TCP connections), the best bet is to set the tcp_mem sysctl
> values in the startup scripts, or use the new initialization function in
> 2.6.21.
What's most important is determining if that tcp_mem[] patch actually
fixes his problem, so it is his responsibility to see whether this
is the case.
If it does fix the problem, I'm happy to submit the backport to -stable.
But until such tests are made, it's just speculation whether the patch
fixes the problem or not, and therefore there is zero justification to
submit it to -stable.
-
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists