Rainer Jung wrote:
No, I think it's not:
1) This is not a regression, it was always implemented like that.
Right, and the reason it was never changed was because
no one gave any reason to change it.
Like said, 60 seconds recover timeout was probably used
since someone thought it should be 'fine'.
OTOH the proper value would be 240, cause that's the
common value of TCP_CLOSE_WAIT timeout.
Anyhow, leaving the current 60 second default value,
but allowing lower intervals will change nothing to
the 99.99% of the users.
Regards,
Mladen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
