From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 22:53:40 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7dfb5c700d4fe23dedbb15cba8dfd966@gmx.de> References: <7dfb5c700d4fe23dedbb15cba8dfd966@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] multiple pings cause panic Topicbox-Message-UUID: 088f7b40-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sun Apr 18 21:21:10 EDT 2010, cinap_lenrek@gmx.de wrote: > if one wants to retry connecting he can. if you're primarly functioning as a server, that might be true, but not helpful. you may just appear down. it's just no fun to get the call "i can't (read my mail|cpu in|...)" at 2am. i'd much rather the dumb machine panic and reboot automaticly. but i'm biased because my fileservers doesn't care, and you can't connect to them remotely. > not being able to make a > network connection is a very common case so i guess it would be ok to > simply let it fail on this point instead of hanging and waiting. > > rebooting sounds like a little bit too drastic for me. expecially if it > is about icmp sockets. devip just has too less context to make a good > decision. > > the comment above the panic call also hinted that it was ment as some > kind of a bet or a debugging leftover so it felt save to remove it :) panicing is not right. all i'm saying is that printing might not really help either. i don't think either of us have the testing resources to be confident that your patch is going to be a significant win. it looks fine, but i don't want to find out at 2am it's not really. after all, i haven't yet had a panic due to this and i've got some (unintentionally) tough customers. they've got deadlines, too. - erik