Walter Haidinger wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Thomas Michalka wrote:
>
> > No, it does by no means or would it make any sense?
> > I say: no. Read the manpage:
> I have read it several times, fornt- and backwards, and I say: YES! ;-)
Set the following case: Somebody lives in a region where a connection is charged
by impulses, the first one *always* with a constant duration, e.g. 10 minutes.
The following impulses may be different depending upon what time it is and/or
the day in the week.
This construction needs a treatment by diald with an initial duration affected
by a fuzz parameter, so both impulses, the initial *and* the second one, has to
be affected by <fuzz>.
With 'impulse 600,60,20' diald has to probe the link state after 580 seconds at
a first time and then after 640 second (from the very first beginning) a second
time.
So, finally I agree with you that this would be a useful behavior of diald.
> With all regards to your theory, but this would mean for
> e.g. impulse 320,340,20
> that diald would shut down the link after:
> a. keeping the link up for a minimum of 320 seconds, then proceed to
> b. waiting for 340 seconds (secondary-duration) and finally
> c. checking if the link is idle in the next 20 seconds (fuzz).
>
> So, the first idle check would be after 320+340=660 seconds!
>
> Now, I've run a test:
> For me, diald shut down the link after about 335 seconds if the link is
> idle. Just a couple of seconds before initial-duration + fuzz (320+20)
> time out. However, there should not anything such as initial+fuzz...
I have read the manual page once more with a maximum of attention. Again I would
say that it tells us the fuzz parameter actually should *not* affect the initial
duration:
"In the three argument form, the <initial-duration> parameter indicates the
minimum number of seconds diald will keep the line up once a call has been
initiated. After this timer expires diald will proceed as for the two
argument case using the <secondary-duration> parameter in place of the
<duration> parameter."
So, if your test turns out the opposite, this part of the manpage definitely
*must* be wrong.
> Can you explain this behaviour by reading the man-page?
> Well, I cannot.
I can't too.
That's it why I didn't believe the fuzz parameter working this way (did never
test it because the 'Deutsche Telekom' doesn't have an initial impulse duration
different from the following impulses).
Conclusion: this behavior could be better documented.
BTW: The example for the three argument form
"Similarly, if you're calls are billed by the second, but there is a minimum
charge for the first 10 minutes, then you might use the following command.
impulse 600,0,0"
is a bit unlucky, because here it is nearly not important when diald probes the
link state, in the last 20 seconds of the first impulse or directly after this
impulse every second.
Now I think these things are cleared, but not yet improved. This has to be done
for the next change of version.
Best regards, Thomas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-diald" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
