From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] tcp: introduce tcp_tw_interval to specifiy the time of TIME-WAIT Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:05:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20120927.130529.620560818048014548.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1348735261-29225-1-git-send-email-amwang@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, kaber@trash.net, edumazet@google.com, nhorman@tuxdriver.com To: amwang@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:55292 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751134Ab2I0RFd (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:05:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1348735261-29225-1-git-send-email-amwang@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Cong Wang Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:41:01 +0800 > In commercial Unix systems, this kind of parameters, such as > tcp_timewait in AIX and tcp_time_wait_interval in HP-UX, have > already been available. Their implementations allow users to tune > how long they keep TCP connection as TIME-WAIT state on the > millisecond time scale." This statement only makes me happy that these systems are not as widely deployed as Linux is. Furthermore, the mere existence of a facility in another system is never an argument for why we should have it too. Often it's instead a huge reason for us not to add it. Without appropriate confirmation that an early time-wait reuse is valid, decreasing this interval can only be dangerous.