Subject: Re: NFS and kernel 2.6.x
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, shannon@widomaker.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20040416184821.GA25402@mail.shareable.org>
References: <20040416011401.GD18329@widomaker.com>
	 <1082079061.7141.85.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
	 <20040415185355.1674115b.akpm@osdl.org>
	 <20040416090331.GC22226@mail.shareable.org>
	 <1082130906.2581.10.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
	 <20040416184821.GA25402@mail.shareable.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1082142401.2581.131.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:06:41 -0700
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 875
Lines: 21

On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 11:48, Jamie Lokier wrote:

> In other words, with adaptive rtt the concept of "retrans" being a
> fixed number is fundamentally flawed -- unless it's also accompanied
> by a minimum timeout time.  You'd need a retrans value of 20 or so for
> the above perfectly normal LAN situation, but then that's far too
> large on other occasions with other networks or servers.

At that point, it makes sense to drop the entire "retrans+timeo"
paradigm, and just state that soft timeouts take a single parameter
("timeo") that determines the timeout value.

That's something that is dead easy to do...

Cheers,
  Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/