|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
From: Daniel Ouellet (daniel
presscom.net)
Date: Wed Dec 12 2007 - 23:30:33 CST
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
knitti wrote:
> On 12/12/07, Daniel Ouellet <daniel
presscom.net> wrote:
>> I am only
>> saying that using PF in front of httpd will reduce the possible number
>> of httpd close_wait you might see. By default httpd can only support up
>> to 256 connections, unless you increase it and compile it again.
>
> I don't understand why pf would reduce this. Every single CLOSE_WAIT
> stems from a former established connection, and pf can nothing do
> to convince httpd to close its socket. No rogue clients involved here.
Yes you are right.
>> lead you in that path, then I am sorry. What will affect your close_wait
>> time (when you reach that point) are the tcp stack value, witch I am
>> reluctant to suggest to adjust as they sure can create way more harm
>> then goods.
>
> I don't think there is a systl for that. TCP connections don't expire by
> default, if you not make them, and the same should go for a half-closed
> one. There are perfectly legit reasons for long open half-closed
> TCP connections.
In my flow of emails, I mixed two things. Glad you cut it. It would help
for normal heavy traffic, or fake one and it's possible to affect the
keep alive from the tcp side making sockets be available sooner, etc.
But again, specifically for CLOSE_WAIT, I stand corrected.
>> 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?
I miss spoke ( or in this case write ) I confuse myself between that
stage and idle/waiting/FIN_WAIT_x/etc of fake connections that would
take sockets of httpd away from legit traffic that PF would/could
definitely help, however, in this tread, I lost track of where we were
in the process and specially, I had a gap in my understanding that miss
lead me as well.
Was interesting however.
Thanks
Daniel
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]