If the application is extremely slow, then the connection is effectively dead, and we might as well drop it anyway.
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 06:53:51PM +0000, Hexin Wang wrote: > Hi Ben, > > TCP keep alive gives a good alternative to use cases where there is no > firewall or proxy concern. Transport level keep alive is good enough for > ovsdb to determine if connection is alive or not, without worrying if > application is slow (or extremely slow) in open flow echo reply. > > Can we working on pushing this into ovs release? > > Thanks. > > Hexin > > > > On 3/2/17, 3:57 PM, "Ben Pfaff" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >We used application-level echo request and replies instead, because they > >are reliable even if a TCP connection passes through a firewall or proxy > >that does not properly pass through TCP keepalives. > > > >On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 11:48:04PM +0000, Hexin Wang wrote: > >> Hi Ben, > >> > >> What is the reason that it is not getting to the main release? This seems > >> the right keep alive mechanism for neutron to talk to ovn database, if > >> they are not running on the same host/container and would have to use tcp > >> as the transport. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Hexin > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 3/2/17, 3:45 PM, "Ben Pfaff" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 11:43:01PM +0000, Hexin Wang wrote: > >> >> I have a question on the following patch that use TCP keep alive for > >> >> ovsdb connection. > >> >> > >> >> https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2011-April/251891.html > >> >> > >> >> Did this patch go into ovs main release? > >> > > >> >No. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
