| 1 |
There is no such thing has a TCP timestamp: |
| 2 |
http://freebie.fatpipe.org/~mjb/Drawings/TCP_Header.png |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
so, that doesn't make any sense... |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Kevin Faulkner <kevlar.kernel@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> Yes, I also forgot that I had been subscribed to this list. |
| 8 |
> To get a topic going I was at work and I argued that we should disable TCP |
| 9 |
> timestamps. I was discussing in a meeting that this would cut back (perhaps |
| 10 |
> very slightly) on the amount of work that the system has to do before |
| 11 |
> sending a packet out. In a high traffic system (like a file server or a mail |
| 12 |
> server or in my case a Oracle Database), not having to throw this on every |
| 13 |
> packet should increase performance ever so slightly. Disabling this would |
| 14 |
> benefit security, as the attacker would not be able to gather the up time |
| 15 |
> from the targeted system. |
| 16 |
> Like I said this might be a slight increase, but its an increase |
| 17 |
> none-the-less, and when you have a DBA crying about poor network speed or |
| 18 |
> IO, or the system is too heavily loaded, then this keeps him quiet for a few |
| 19 |
> days. :) |
| 20 |
> Any thoughts??? |
| 21 |
> -- |
| 22 |
> gentoo-performance@l.g.o mailing list |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Miguel Sousa Filipe |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-performance@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives
