Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:47:23 +0200 | From | DervishD <> | Subject | Re: The dreadful CLOSE_WAIT |
| |
Hi Markus :)
* Markus Schaber <schabios@logi-track.com> dixit: > > I know, that's the only 'harm' a CLOSE_WAIT timeout will have, > > but anyway I don't see any point in having a permanent CLOSE_WAIT > > state. The other end is not there, it has sent us a FIN. > Yes, but it may still want to read.
I know, now I understand.
> > Well, it may be an idea ;) Anyway if you have, let's say, a > > maximum of 10 connections in your server, and I do 10 wget+C-c, you > > no longer have a running server. The kernel should not allow that. A > > timeout of 3600 seconds seems very reasonable, or somethink like > > that, am I wrong? > Well, when the other side is really dead, then connection keepalive > should detect that (when enabled), by either timeout or getting a reset > packet.
But this must be enabled in the application, am I wrong? using SO_KEEPALIVE. Can it be enabled using sysctl or the like.
Thanks for the information. When I saw the transitions, I thought that the server got the FIN after the client died, but obviously it can get it when the client doesn a half-close, and I didn't think of it. Thanks, Markus :)
Now, is there any sysctl that enables a keepalive for this kind of connections (dead remote end, local in CLOSE_WAIT) for all connections?
Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado
-- Linux Registered User 88736 http://www.pleyades.net & http://raul.pleyades.net/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |