Jump to content

Recommended Posts

SShzin
Posted
32 minutes ago, Cr8iveLosr said:

Here’s a simple thought: instead of bombarding him with unnecessary responses, just answer the question.

As of right now, there is nothing in the changelogs indicating that this long-standing feature request has been added.

The more you know....

My best guess is there's not a real response to the question. Latest has been the same release number for a while now. 

Cr8iveLosr
Posted
3 hours ago, SShzin said:

My best guess is there's not a real response to the question. Latest has been the same release number for a while now. 

Yeah, deflect and delay seems to be the default approach about 90% of the time.

Posted

We are working completely blind.  We cannot see or touch your installation.  So, the most specific information we can have is always helpful.  You can make it easier for us to help you or more difficult.

Cr8iveLosr
Posted

This isn’t an installation troubleshooting issue, and asking for a version number doesn’t answer the question.

The question is simple:

Has WebSocket keepalive been lowered to a real world websocket timeout or made configurable in a released server version? If yes, which version and where is the setting? If no, is it still planned?

There are already multiple pages explaining the issue. Deflecting back to “what version are you on?” just avoids answering whether the feature exists.

  • Agree 1
Posted

It'll be a week tomorrow so I'll rephrase, using the above question;

 

Has WebSocket keepalive been lowered to a real world websocket timeout or made configurable in a released server version? If yes, which version and where is the setting? If no, is it still planned?

 

 

  • Haha 1
Cr8iveLosr
Posted

It honestly feels like squirrels are being thrown out as distractions at this point.

Months ago this was described as an existing keepalive that just needs its interval adjusted, possibly even exposed as a setting. That was framed as a relatively easy change. Yet releases keep coming and this never gets addressed.

At this point this isn’t even a feature request anymore. It’s a glitch in the matrix that’s already been identified and can be resolved.

A proper keepalive interval of 30–45 seconds, or the previously confirmed configurable option, would directly address the problem being discussed here.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...