Samuel Andrew McIntyre wrote: > The way I read it, setting SO_KEEPALIVE just sets the option of the same > name in the underlying native implementation. While the underlying TCP > implementation on the server would keep track of the whether or not the > client machine responded to probes by the server, the application would > not actually be notified until a write was attempted on the socket after > the keepalive timeout (or the timeout expired while we're blocked on a > write), at which time the native implementation would return SIGPIPE and > presumably a SocketException would be thrown. > > In the case where we're blocked on a read, the application would never > be notified. In the case that you need to be able to timeout on a read, > you would need to use SO_TIMEOUT or implement your own timer. Or am I > misunderstanding how keepalive works?
This is simply not true. SO_KEEPALIVE works, even for blocking in reads. I have tested it. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
