[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4697AE6E.4070600@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:55:10 -0700
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
noboru.obata.ar@...achi.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.22] TCP: Make TCP_RTO_MAX a variable (take 2)
Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rick Jones wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>>I suspect that what is happening here is that a link goes down in a trunk
>>somewhere for some number of seconds, resulting in a given TCP segment being
>>retransmitted several times, with the doubling of the RTO each time.
>
>
> But that's a back-off for the retransmissions, the doubling is
> temporary... Once you return to normal conditions, the accumulated backoff
> multiplier will be immediately cut back to normal. So you should then be
> back to 1 second (like in the example or whatever) again...
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.
rick jones
-
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