From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64163 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753941Ab1HFBkM (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Aug 2011 21:40:12 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <20028.39798.213403.685504@regina.usersys.redhat.com> Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 11:40:06 +1000 From: Max Matveev To: Jim Rees Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, steved@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Update nfs(5) manpage - timeo for NFS/TCP In-Reply-To: <20110805124015.GA16926@merit.edu> References: <20110805021903.C84608198734@regina.usersys.redhat.com> <20110805124015.GA16926@merit.edu> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:40:15 -0400, Jim Rees wrote: rees> Max Matveev wrote: rees> NFS/TCP does linear backoff then retransmiting - the manpage rees> was mistakenly asserting the "no backoff" theory. rees> Actually, now that I made you change the wording, I think the original rees> wording was correct. "Backoff" refers to an increase in the interval rees> between retries. Since the interval is constant, there is no backoff. The interval is increased: with timeo=10 (1 sec) the retries will be happening and t+1, t+3, t+6 etc - see my original mail on Jul 7: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-nfs/msg22425.html If that's not a backoff then what is? max