Thread View: dnet.ham
1 messages
1 total messages
Started by Russ Nelson
Sun, 19 May 1991 17:13
Re: Socket Keep-awake Option?
Author: Russ Nelson
Date: Sun, 19 May 1991 17:13
Date: Sun, 19 May 1991 17:13
27 lines
1888 bytes
1888 bytes
In article <9105190241.AA16679@ucsd.edu> Jay Maynard <S0JM@ADMIN.HSC.UTH.TMC.EDU> writes: > Keep-alives are the work of the devil. Aw, cmon, Russ...tell us what you _really_ think. :-) I'll not repeat the language I used when a VMS system I was using kept giving up on ICMP Unreachable on an established connection. Now, I happened to be using the connection at the time, but even if I hadn't, the ICMP Unreachable from the keep-alive would have killed the connection. > If it's only temporary, why give up on it? That depends on your idea of temporary. In the Internet world, temporary is a few minutes. In the ham packet world, temporary is a few days. So? When your resources are limited, it makes even *more* sense to conserve them by retaining connections. In the 1200 baud world, the most precious resource is the data already sent, not TCP connections on the hosts. Far better to keep connections hanging around in the hopes that you can resume your transfer, than to give up because of some pre-determined magic timeout value. --russ <nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker. Clear cutting is criminal, spiking trees is criminal, and using hyperbole of this magnitude in a serious discussion is criminal. -- Irv Chidsey
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads