Hi Simon,
I also need to do the same (it is in my todo list).
The reaso to do so is quite reasonable: I am connecting to a server over
GPRS, I have a list of servers and I try all of them sequentialy twice.
The probelm is that each SYN is billed and thus excesses have to be avoided.
Lont-time experience in *this situation* shows that if the server does
not answer after a few seconds, it is not worth waiting any further.
Usualy a second atempt (which will use a different return port) will work.
Thanks,
Alain
address@hidden escreveu:
Changing these defines is generally not a good idea, unless you have
detailed knowledge of what they do in the tcp stack. You might risk
unstable connections on networks which are not 100% safe against packet
loss, and you also might risk interoperability with other network
stacks/devices.
In general, it is better to design your communication protocol in a way
to detect a timeout instead of changing the timeout at TCP level, where
you change it for all connections - although you might only need the
timeout for a dedicated control connection (or something like that).
Simon
PELISSIER Christophe wrote:
Hi,
I want to speed up the connection error detection of my application.
Is decreasing the TCP_MAXRTX and TCP_SYNMAXRTX value a good way to be
aware rapidely that a connection has been lost.
Is there any risk to decrease TCP_MAXRTX from 12 (default value in my
lwipopts.h) to 6 and TCP_SYNMAXRTX from 6 to 3?
What can be the side effect that i must take care of?
Thanks for your support.
Regards,
Christophe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
lwip-users mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
_______________________________________________
lwip-users mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
_______________________________________________
lwip-users mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users