[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5065DEB3.3040508@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:27 -0700
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: amwang@...hat.com, nhorman@...driver.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, kaber@...sh.net, edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] tcp: introduce tcp_tw_interval to specifiy
the time of TIME-WAIT
On 09/27/2012 11:43 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:33:07 +0800
>
>> I don't think reducing TIME_WAIT is a good idea either, but there must
>> be some reason behind as several UNIX provides a microsecond-scale
>> tuning interface, or maybe in non-recycle mode, their RTO is much less
>> than 2*MSL?
Microsecond? HP-UX uses milliseconds for the units of the tunable,
though that does not necessarily mean it will actually be implemented to
millisecond accuracy
> Yes, there is a reason. It's there for retaining multi-million-dollar
> customers.
>
> There is no other reasons these other systems provide these
> facilities, they are simply there in an attempt to retain a dwindling
> customer base.
>
> Any other belief is extremely naive.
HP-UX's TIME_WAIT interval tunability goes back to HP-UX 11.0, which
first shipped in 1997. It got it by virtue of using a "Mentat-based"
stack which had that functionality. I may not have my history
completely correct, but Solaris 2 also got their networking bits from
Mentat, and I believe shipped before HP-UX 11.
To my recollection, neither were faced with a dwindling customer base at
the time.
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