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: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 02:43:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20120928.024336.598451765169362800.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1348735261-29225-1-git-send-email-amwang@redhat.com> <20120927142334.GA3194@neilslaptop.think-freely.org> <1348813987.7264.41.camel@cr0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: nhorman@tuxdriver.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, kaber@trash.net, edumazet@google.com To: amwang@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:34686 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750900Ab2I1Gni (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 02:43:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1348813987.7264.41.camel@cr0> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Cong Wang 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? 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.