On Thu, 2020-01-02 at 11:44 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
> 
> > > That suggests one timeout could be sufficient - the progress
> > > timeout
> > > you the one you found - just not too short and not too fast.
> > 
> > How about the attached (untested) patch?

I finally tested it in various setups. Including your cool test server:
https://sourceware.org/ml/systemtap/2020-q1/msg00002.html


> That looks good, though I'd bump up the 60s -> 120s to give it a big
> margin over already-observed latencies.

Lets split the difference and make it 90s. That is more than twice the
worst delay I ever observed.

Pushed the attached.

Cheers,

Mark