From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: [NFS] NFS inconsistent behaviour Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:11:17 +0100 Message-ID: <1161259878.17335.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20061016084656.GA13292@janus> <46465bb30610160235m211910b6g2eb074aa23060aa9@mail.gmail.com> <20061016093904.GA13866@janus> <46465bb30610171822h3f747069ge9a170f1759af645@mail.gmail.com> <20061018063945.GA5917@janus> <1161194229.6095.81.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20061018183807.GA12018@janus> <1161199580.6095.112.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20061018200936.GA14733@janus> <76bd70e30610181317w3e8315e5m75056305904a1bce@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Frank van Maarseveen , Trond Myklebust , Mohit Katiyar , Linux NFS mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Chuck Lever In-Reply-To: <76bd70e30610181317w3e8315e5m75056305904a1bce@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Ar Mer, 2006-10-18 am 16:17 -0400, ysgrifennodd Chuck Lever: > Some discussion on both FreeBSD and Linux mailing lists suggests that > ignoring TIME_WAIT has some risk to it, so that may not be an Ignoring time wait leads to corrupted sessions and can lead to tcp food fights. It exists for a reason although the protocol itself actually does still have flaws in this area (which are kept in the locked cupboard full of skeletons at the IETF 8) ) Alan