[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKA=qzZ7K6gGJ88NR83nm1vNnRWiuwN-MbEVzeSRpuok7j2vTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:27:40 -0500
From: Josh Hunt <joshhunt00@...il.com>
To: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: long-lived tcp connection question
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net> wrote:
> * Josh Hunt | 2012-03-22 11:56:19 [-0500]:
>
>>Given things like web sockets with presumably long-lived persistent
>>tcp connections and a sparse amount of data, I was wondering if there
>>are currently any mechanisms in the kernel or out of tree projects
>>which work on reducing the overhead these connections require?
>>Possibly storing their state after a certain period of inactivity and
>>then reviving them when work needs to be done? I'm thinking something
>>along the lines of the state info stored for time-wait sockets and
>>then the ability to resurrect it on an incoming packet. Keeping
>>resources around for such connections seems inefficient although
>>possibly unavoidable.
>
> Do you referring to something like this:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-fastopen/
>
> The Linux code is not released yet, but I know that the required storage
> overhead is small. Search the IETF email archive for more background
> information about the topic.
>
> Hagen
>
No, this deals more with the overhead of establishing a connection.
I'm asking more about the overhead associated with holding on to
long-lived connections which may not be doing much.
--
Josh
--
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