On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:49:17AM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 09.07.2020 11:29, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 10:15:39PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> > wrote:
> > > Keep-alive won't hurt, let's try to enable it even if not requested by
> > > user.
"Denis V. Lunev" writes:
> On 7/9/20 11:29 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 10:15:39PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>> Keep-alive won't hurt, let's try to enable it even if not requested by
>>> user.
>> Keep-alive intentionally breaks TCP connections earlier
On 7/9/20 11:29 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 10:15:39PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> Keep-alive won't hurt, let's try to enable it even if not requested by
>> user.
> Keep-alive intentionally breaks TCP connections earlier than normal
> in face of transie
09.07.2020 11:29, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 10:15:39PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Keep-alive won't hurt, let's try to enable it even if not requested by
user.
Keep-alive intentionally breaks TCP connections earlier than normal
in face of transient networ
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 10:15:39PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Keep-alive won't hurt, let's try to enable it even if not requested by
> user.
Keep-alive intentionally breaks TCP connections earlier than normal
in face of transient networking problems.
The question is more about w