From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Predrag Hodoba" <predrag.hodoba@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NET: Add TCP connection abort IOCTL
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:09:17 +0200
Message-ID: <46d726f90703301209o1147385fx9151c10f95e16684@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070327214754.GA11677@dag-work>
	 <20070327.153025.45876618.davem@davemloft.net>
	 <46d726f90703290756k1894b0aal8df85d46d8c2a25e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20070329.114139.55510589.davem@davemloft.net>
	 <460C6348.5030904@osdl.org>
	 <46d726f90703300810q619e8bbmb5b15a58ff37bbed@mail.gmail.com>
	 <460D57FC.6080007@linux-foundation.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "David Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, dagriego@gmail.com,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: "Stephen Hemminger" <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.225]:3438 "EHLO
	nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751610AbXC3TJR (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:09:17 -0400
Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s1so509553nze
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:09:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <460D57FC.6080007@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On 30/03/07, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Predrag Hodoba wrote:
> > On 30/03/07, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org> wrote:
> >> David Miller wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Something being in the CGL specification is to me exactly a great
> >> > reason NOT to add it.  That specification is so full of garbage it's
> >> > unbelievable.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks, you've given me one more reason not to even remotely consider
> >> > adding this feature.
> >> >
> >> Agreed, CGL is a vendor driven group that has always wanted to replicate
> >> proprietary misfeatures onto Linux.  There is a real requirement to
> >> provide high availability but there should be no requirement to
> >> implement
> >> the solution in the same crap way as legacy Unix.
> >
> > OK, let's put aside CGL and legacy Unices.
> >
> > Still, I don't see how the case I mentioned can easily be handled.
> > (The case being - effective clean up of all affected client TCP
> > connections, following failover of the server IP address from active
> > to passive node in a highly available cluster).
>
> Why clean them up? The client connections will timeout and they can
> reconnect. Actively killing them early does nothing helpful. Just like
> the CGL requirement for forced unmount, the forced operation introduces
> a whole bunch of race conditions and shared file descriptor problems.

Well, it depends on how fast you have to react on failure. For
data-center grade high-availability it is, as you said, enough to wait
for clients to timeout. For telco (or similar, more demanding) grade
of high-availability, timeout just takes too long. You typically have
to discover failure using some kind of heartbeat mechanism and clean
up immediately ...