From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp•com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft•net>
Cc: amwang@redhat•com, nhorman@tuxdriver•com, netdev@vger•kernel.org,
kuznet@ms2•inr.ac.ru, kaber@trash•net, edumazet@google•com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] tcp: introduce tcp_tw_interval to specifiy the time of TIME-WAIT
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5065DEB3.3040508@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120928.024336.598451765169362800.davem@davemloft.net>
On 09/27/2012 11:43 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat•com>
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:33:07 +0800
>
>> I don't think reducing TIME_WAIT is a good idea either, but there must
>> be some reason behind as several UNIX provides a microsecond-scale
>> tuning interface, or maybe in non-recycle mode, their RTO is much less
>> than 2*MSL?
Microsecond? HP-UX uses milliseconds for the units of the tunable,
though that does not necessarily mean it will actually be implemented to
millisecond accuracy
> Yes, there is a reason. It's there for retaining multi-million-dollar
> customers.
>
> There is no other reasons these other systems provide these
> facilities, they are simply there in an attempt to retain a dwindling
> customer base.
>
> Any other belief is extremely naive.
HP-UX's TIME_WAIT interval tunability goes back to HP-UX 11.0, which
first shipped in 1997. It got it by virtue of using a "Mentat-based"
stack which had that functionality. I may not have my history
completely correct, but Solaris 2 also got their networking bits from
Mentat, and I believe shipped before HP-UX 11.
To my recollection, neither were faced with a dwindling customer base at
the time.
rick jones
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-28 17:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-27 8:41 [RFC PATCH net-next] tcp: introduce tcp_tw_interval to specifiy the time of TIME-WAIT Cong Wang
2012-09-27 14:23 ` Neil Horman
2012-09-27 17:02 ` Rick Jones
2012-09-28 6:33 ` Cong Wang
2012-09-28 6:43 ` David Miller
2012-09-28 17:30 ` Rick Jones [this message]
2012-09-28 13:16 ` Neil Horman
2012-10-02 7:04 ` Cong Wang
2012-10-02 12:09 ` Neil Horman
2012-10-08 3:17 ` Cong Wang
2012-10-08 14:07 ` Neil Horman
2012-10-09 3:42 ` Cong Wang
2012-09-27 17:05 ` David Miller
2012-09-28 6:39 ` Cong Wang
2012-09-28 6:44 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5065DEB3.3040508@hp.com \
--to=rick.jones2@hp$(echo .)com \
--cc=amwang@redhat$(echo .)com \
--cc=davem@davemloft$(echo .)net \
--cc=edumazet@google$(echo .)com \
--cc=kaber@trash$(echo .)net \
--cc=kuznet@ms2$(echo .)inr.ac.ru \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox