by Alex.
Le 03/01/2014 02:03, Alex Grönholm a écrit :
02.01.2014 23:48, Pieter Hintjens kirjoitti:
Seconds is fine for this case but surprising overall since all other
durations in the API are in msec.
I'm not sure what you mean about backwards compatibility.
As it stands, the TCP keepaliv
03.01.2014 14:45, Bjorn Reese kirjoitti:
> On 01/03/2014 02:03 AM, Alex Grönholm wrote:
>
>> As it stands, the TCP keepalive intervals are given in seconds on the
>> vast majority of operating systems.
> Furthermore, if the peer is unresponsive then additional probes will
he
vast majority of operating systems.
If we change it so the values are given in milliseconds instead (meaning
that we divide the given value by 1000 before calling setsockopt()),
this will break existing apps that set the keepalive intervals as seconds.
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at
se.
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Alex Grönholm
> wrote:
>> This isn't directly related to ZeroMQ, but it is somewhat relevant now given
>> A) the addition of the (yet unimplemented) heartbeating feature in ZMTP/3.0
>> and B) the Windows TCP keepalive parame
This isn't directly related to ZeroMQ, but it is somewhat relevant now
given A) the addition of the (yet unimplemented) heartbeating feature in
ZMTP/3.0 and B) the Windows TCP keepalive parameters fix I committed
recently.
The question is: has someone here used TCP keepalives as a substitute
fo
