Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs+bounces-34-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALXu0Uc7zHasg2damr4nhRZZF7xBbFc0ghdjop87+5vHa8bBHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN-5tyFBZibge52iZtjnz5j6S2GrTXTWdzaDxLVQcr+G8HegvQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-5tyFBZibge52iZtjnz5j6S2GrTXTWdzaDxLVQcr+G8HegvQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cedric Blancher <cedric.blancher@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 23:48:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CALXu0UfiCrcDciLX5A1tvG0DiPwAXPg=GikPakKW16UhZ4X-Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: TCP_KEEPALIVE for Linux NFS client?
To: Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 at 03:57, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Ced,
>
> Why do you think it doesn't use it? Have you looked at a network trace
> of an idle connection? I seem to recall seeing keep-alive being used.

Well, I don't see a setsockopt(TCP_KEEPALIVE) in the libtirpc code?

Ced

>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 8:02=E2=80=AFPM Cedric Blancher
> <cedric.blancher@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Good morning!
> >
> > Why does the Linux NFS client not use TCP_KEEPALIVE for its TCP
> > connections? What are the pro and cons of using that for NFS TCP
> > connections?
> >
> > Ced
> > --
> > Cedric Blancher <cedric.blancher@gmail.com>
> > [https://plus.google.com/u/0/+CedricBlancher/]
> > Institute Pasteur


--=20
Cedric Blancher <cedric.blancher@gmail.com>
[https://plus.google.com/u/0/+CedricBlancher/]
Institute Pasteur