-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jan Hlavat� wrote:
> Kathey Marsden wrote:
>
>>2) Add a property derby.drda.keepAlive={true|false} (defaults to true as
>>described above). There seems to be a need to be able to turn keepAlive
>>off in some cases.
>
>
> And why is that? Who is worried by keepalive and why?
> There is no overhead associated with it.
Is that true, no overhead, or is it *low* overhead?
- From a quick google search I found this, which indicates keepalive is a
controversial feature.
http://home.student.uu.se/j/jolo4453/projekt/tcpip1/tcp_keep.htm#23_0
(which seems to be this actual book)
http://www.aw-bc.com/catalog/academic/product/0,1144,0201633469-TOC,00.html
See this quote
[quote]
Keepalives are not part of the TCP specification. The Host Requirements
RFC provides three reasons not to use them: (1) they can cause perfectly
good connections to be dropped during transient failures, (2) they
consume unnecessary bandwidth, and (3) they cost money on an internet
that charges by the packet.
[end-quote]
So what would be the downside of allow keep alive to be disabled?
Dan.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD4DBQFBazJhIv0S4qsbfuQRAo8AAJ99J6M7uMb8+nDPbWmQw4xX/6MuswCYxxg1
S4uvbpVeb7Pg83XKmHBY+w==
=2d/M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
