From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from merit-proxy01.merit.edu ([207.75.116.193]:33266 "EHLO merit-proxy01.merit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754249Ab1HFMn6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Aug 2011 08:43:58 -0400 Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 08:43:56 -0400 From: Jim Rees To: Max Matveev Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, steved@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Update nfs(5) manpage - timeo for NFS/TCP Message-ID: <20110806124356.GB20169@merit.edu> References: <20110805021903.C84608198734@regina.usersys.redhat.com> <20110805124015.GA16926@merit.edu> <20028.39798.213403.685504@regina.usersys.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20028.39798.213403.685504@regina.usersys.redhat.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Max Matveev wrote: 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? You're right. Sorry I misunderstood. Re-reading what you wrote I'm not sure it could be made any clearer. Maybe change "timeout is increased" to "timeout interval is increased." But I'd be happy with it as-is.