From: Rick Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.22] TCP: Make TCP_RTO_MAX a variable (take 2)
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:51:44 -0700
> > TCP's timeouts are perfectly fine, and the only thing you
> > might be showing above is that the application timeouts
> > are too short or that TCP needs notifications.
>
> The application timeouts are probably being driven by external desires
> for a given recovery time.
Agreed.
> TCP notifications don't solve anything unless the links in question are
> local to the machine on which the TCP endpoint resides.
Agreed. Thank you for a good explanation.
My original discussion using Dom-0 and Dom-U might be
misleading, but I was trying to say:
* Network failure and recovery(failover) are not necessarily
visible locally.
** Dom-0 vs. Dom-U discussion is just an example of the case
where a network failure is not visible locally.
** For another example, network switches or routers sitting
somewhere in the middle of route are often duplicated with
active-standby setting today.
* Quick response (retransmission) of TCP upon a recovery of such
invisible devices as well is desired.
* If the failure and recovery are not visible locally, TCP
notifications do not help.
Regards,
--
OBATA Noboru ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
