Re: [PATCH] incomplete: scoreboard work

[Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>]

Uh, 5 seconds timeout?  That's far too low to accomplish any useful amount
of network traffic in the presence of any congestion.  I'm surprised it
worked for you at all.

If you wanted to do that you could recompile with the lower
SCOREBOARD_MAINTENANCE_INTERVAL.

Or maybe there's an adaptive technique we could use.

Dean

On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Ed Korthof wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> 
> > Here is some work that definately includes bug fixes, fixes for some
> > pathologies I've seen while playing with the new scoreboard code.
> > It's definately not in a ready-to-commit state yet, needs a little
> > cleanup.  But just shout if you see something that looks obscene.
> > 
> > I'm really considering raising SCOREBOARD_MAINTENANCE_INTERVAL to 5s
> > from 1s.  It seems to respond just as nicely to problems.  But timer
> > granularity is now tied to the maintenance interval ... so 5s means
> > timers might be late by up to 10s.
> 
> I think this might actually be a problem.  A while back I was running a
> server w/ rather high load, a fast processor, and limited memory.  I
> wanted keepalive timeouts to be around 3 seconds; in fact, if they were as
> slow as 5 seconds, better performance could be had by turning them off. 
> So, if I understand this correctly, it could significantly affect some
> sites, as keepalives are definitely a nice feature.
> 
>      -- Ed Korthof        |  Web Server Engineer --
>      -- ed@organic.com    |  Organic Online, Inc --
>      -- (415) 278-5676    |  Fax: (415) 284-6891 --
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
>