In message <[email protected]>, David Greenman writes:
>>In message <[email protected]>, "John R. LoVerso" writes:
>>
>>>But, consider going back to the discusssions leading up to the Host
>>>Requirements
>>>RFC (1122). The particular problem was that the original timeout value for
>>>keepalives was tiny (a few minutes). 1122 dictated the corrections for
>>>this.
>>>Here are the important points from section 4.2.3.6:
>>
>>But RFC 1122 pretty much entirely predates the "modern internet user". While
>>I fully supported the policy back then, I no longer do.
>>
>>I still think the right thing is:
>>
>> default to keepalives.
>> set the timeout to a week.
>
> I don't support increasing the default timeout. That would cause problems
>for a lot of server systems that rely on the relatively short two hour default.
>The best I think you could do would be to increase it to something like
>12-24 hours as a default, but even that might be problematical.
> Actually, I think we should leave it alone. I don't mind if people add an
>rc.conf variable, however.
First of all, our current default is not two hours, but to kill
after 4 hours idle followed by no response for 20min:
net.inet.tcp.keepidle: 14400
net.inet.tcp.keepintvl: 150
So anyone depending on two hours are screwed already.
How about this then:
net.inet.tcp.always_keepidle: 86400 /* new variable */
net.inet.tcp.always_keepintvl: 64800 /* new variable */
net.inet.tcp.keepidle: 14400
net.inet.tcp.keepintvl: 150
net.inet.tcp.always_keepalive: 1
This will have all sockets have keepalives, but if the program
specifically sets keepalives, it gets the shorter timeout.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member
[email protected] "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [email protected]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
