From: Daniel Ouellet (danielpresscom.net)
Date: Wed Dec 12 2007 - 22:58:02 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

knitti wrote:
> On 12/12/07, Daniel Ouellet <danielpresscom.net> wrote:
>> net.inet.tcp.keepidle
>> net.inet.tcp.keepinittime
>> net.inet.tcp.keepintvl
>> net.inet.tcp.rstppslimit
>> net.inet.tcp.synbucketlimit
>> net.inet.tcp.syncachelimit
>
> nope, shoudn't apply, unless my TCP knowledge is wrong or there
> is a bug, which makes it affecting it unintentional

They would help at making more socket to httpd available sooner, but for
this problem, you are right. It wouldn't as if I understood properly the
reading I did, it will get to CLOSE_WAIT only after the FIN/ACK and then
get to that state from where it will then wait for the application to
close and then after the application is closed, the last ACK will be
sent. That's how I understand it, so you are right and I am wrong for
the CLOSE_WAIT state.

>>>> My point with PF here was that it would reduce the possible numbers of
>>>> close_wait state you could possibly see in the first place, witch is one
>>>> of the original goal of the question.
>>> Why?
>> OK, I could be wrong and I am sure someone with a huge stick will hit me
>> with it if I say something stupid, and/or there might be something I am
>> overlooking or not understanding fully, witch is sure possible as well. (;>
>>
>> But if httpd received a fake connection that do not do the full
>> handshake, isn't it there a socket open and/or use by httpd for that
>> fake connection anyway. Meaning it tries to communicate with that fake
>> source and can't and eventually will close and (that's where may be I am
>> failing here) will end up in close_wait may be?
>
> no fake connections involved, CLOSE_WAIT is a state _after_ having a
> fully established connection

Agree, unless it's somehow possible to reach that state without having
an establish and confirmed connection first and looks like it not
possible. So, you are right again. (;>

>> Or, are you saying that the ONLY possible way a socket end up in
>> close_wait state is ONLY when and ONLY possible if it was fully open
>> properly in the first place? If so, then I stand corrected and I was/am
>> wrong about that part of my suggestions. So, is it the case then?
>
> Yes. Random example:
> http://www4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/Projects/JX/Projects/TCP/tcpstate.html

Thanks!

Daniel

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]