From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] make _minimum_ TCP retransmission timeout configurable take 2 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:19:10 -0700 Message-ID: <46D84D8E.9020705@hp.com> References: <200708310009.RAA04175@tardy.cup.hp.com> <20070830.173912.79067694.davem@davemloft.net> <46D769C1.8090808@hp.com> <46D79E91.2040004@psc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: John Heffner Return-path: Received: from palrel10.hp.com ([156.153.255.245]:57051 "EHLO palrel10.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965394AbXHaRTR (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:19:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46D79E91.2040004@psc.edu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org John Heffner wrote: > Rick Jones wrote: > >> Like I said the consumers of this are a triffle well, "anxious" :) > > > Just curious, did you or this customer try with F-RTO enabled? Or is > this case you're dealing with truly hopeless? F-RTO was mentioned to the customer and I'm awaiting their response as to its efficacy in their situation. Everything I've seen thusfar is leading me to believe that we'll still need a higher than 200 millisecond minimum rto though. rick