fwiw i also brought the TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT problems up the end of last year:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg28916.html
it's possible the final message in that thread is how we should define the
behaviour, i haven't tried the TCP_SYNCNT idea though.
-dean
-
To unsubscribe from th
Thus spake Eric Dumazet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 1) Setting a timeout in a millisecond range (< 1000) is not very good
> because some clients may need much more time to send your server the data
> (very long distance). So a second granularity is OK.
I want millisecond accuracy for consistency. se
Felix von Leitner a écrit :
I am trying to use TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT in my web server.
There are some operational problems. First of all: timeout handling. I
would like to be able to set a timeout in seconds (or better:
milliseconds) for how long the socket is allowed to sit there without
data comi
From: Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 02:33:21 +0100
> I am trying to use TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT in my web server.
You aren't going to reach many Linux kernel networking
exports on this mailing list. Please post your question
instead to [EMAIL PROTECTED], as that's where al
I am trying to use TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT in my web server.
There are some operational problems. First of all: timeout handling. I
would like to be able to set a timeout in seconds (or better:
milliseconds) for how long the socket is allowed to sit there without
data coming in. For high load situatio
5 matches
Mail list logo
