[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070712141203.7350429a@freepuppy.rosehill.hemminger.net>
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists