> In message <19990604170654.a8...@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>, David Malone writes:
>
> >It might be nice to have two keepalive timeouts like Nate suggested.
> >You'd have a short one, which applies if the application turns on
> >keepalive or you have alwayskeepalive on. Then you'd have a long
> >one, which applies to all connections regardless. Then:
>
> Then you might as well implement per socket adjustable keepalives.
While this is probably a good idea anyway, you still have the
problem of setting these timeouts within applications for which you
don't have source and for which the current default isn't useful.
I guess this is the reason we have alwayskeepalive - if all
applications set keepalive when they needed it we wouldn't have
it at all.
If you had per socket adjustable keepalives you'd also have to
provide a tool which could set the keepalive timeout on a running
process to get the sort of effect provided by alwayskeepalive.
Having two timeouts would just be a compromise between these?
David.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
