> I think this is good to go. ok kettenis@
>
> Did briefly discuss with Theo during k2k20 and the consensus was it
> should go in after relase. Which is now!
Agree.
> From: Scott Cheloha
> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 13:03:05 -0500
>
> Hey,
>
> > On Oct 7, 2020, at 8:49 PM, 内藤 祐一郎 wrote:
> >
> > Hi.
> >
> > I'm looking forward to this patch is committed.
> > Because this patch solves my problem about CARP timeout.
> >
> > IIJ, a company that I am working
Hey,
> On Oct 7, 2020, at 8:49 PM, 内藤 祐一郎 wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> I'm looking forward to this patch is committed.
> Because this patch solves my problem about CARP timeout.
>
> IIJ, a company that I am working for, is using carp(4) on VMware ESXi hosts
> for VPN and web gateway services.
>
> One
Hi.
I'm looking forward to this patch is committed.
Because this patch solves my problem about CARP timeout.
IIJ, a company that I am working for, is using carp(4) on VMware ESXi hosts
for VPN and web gateway services.
One is master and the other is backup of carp(4).
Active host sometimes
> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 18:50:44 -0500
> From: Scott Cheloha
>
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 01:11:59PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 17:55:39 -0500
> > > From: Scott Cheloha
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 08:46:08PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 01:11:59PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 17:55:39 -0500
> > From: Scott Cheloha
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 08:46:08PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > I want to add clock-based timeouts to the kernel because
> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 17:55:39 -0500
> From: Scott Cheloha
>
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 08:46:08PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > I want to add clock-based timeouts to the kernel because tick-based
> > timeouts suffer from a few problems:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Basically,
Scott Cheloha writes:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 05:55:40PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 08:46:08PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
>> > Basically, ticks are a poor approximation for the system clock. We
>> > should use the real thing where possible.
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 05:55:40PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 08:46:08PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > I want to add clock-based timeouts to the kernel because tick-based
> > timeouts suffer from a few problems:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Basically,
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 08:46:08PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> I want to add clock-based timeouts to the kernel because tick-based
> timeouts suffer from a few problems:
>
> [...]
>
> Basically, ticks are a poor approximation for the system clock. We
> should use the real thing
Hi,
I want to add clock-based timeouts to the kernel because tick-based
timeouts suffer from a few problems:
1. They are not sensitive to NTP adjustment, so they can easily
expire too early or too late. This is incorrect, particularly
for POSIX interfaces that forbid early return.
2.
11 matches
Mail list logo