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