From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933919Ab2HWMPe (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:15:34 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:64768 "EHLO mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933837Ab2HWMP2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:15:28 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tcp: Wrong timeout for SYN segments From: Eric Dumazet To: Alex Bergmann Cc: "H.K. Jerry Chu" , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <50361AEA.6010807@linlab.net> References: <503419D3.1080700@linlab.net> <50361AEA.6010807@linlab.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:15:23 +0200 Message-ID: <1345724123.5904.756.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 13:58 +0200, Alex Bergmann wrote: > On 08/22/2012 06:41 PM, H.K. Jerry Chu wrote: > > This issue occurred to me right after I submitted the patch for RFC6298. > > I did not commit any more change because RFC compliance aside, 180secs > > just seem like eternity in the Internet age. > > > > (See my past post on this at > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=130759078118866&w=2) > > Okay, I missed that post during my search about the current situation. I would suggest to increase TCP_SYN_RETRIES from 5 to 6. 180 secs is eternity, but 31 secs is too small. Can you repost a v2, only changing TCP_SYN_RETRIES ?