httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chuck Murcko <ch...@n2k.com>
Subject Re: lingering_close
Date Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:05:44 GMT
Well, that would then not do the lingering close for timeouts, right?

BTW, where do we call lingering_close in timeout? I don't see that. The
only place I see it getting called is in child_main().

FYI, SGI has an IP patch that sets a configurable timeout for sockets with
SO_LINGER set, so that might be helping on those platforms.

Marc Slemko liltingly intones:
> 
> Except that on a number of platforms, people are saying that NO_LINGCLOSE
> _is_ helping, ie. making the difference between their machines crashing
> and them staying  alive with no problems.
> 
> Details on what various people are seeing under what conditions to come
> later...
> 
> On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Randy Terbush wrote:
> 
> > Actually, as I think about this more, I believe that the reason
> > we are seeing more FIN_WAIT_2 in 1.2 is because we are slamming
> > the door on timeouts. The whole purpose of lingering_close() was
> > to work around some of the buggier TCP stacks. This would also
> > explain why defining NO_LINGCLOSE is not helping the situation.
> > 
> > 
> > > Then I think we need to be setting timeout_req = NULL. It seems 
> > > that the frequency of calls to lingering_close() with Invalid
> > > sd are directly related to timeouts. We're longjumping back
> > > to child_main() and calling lingering_close() there if(r).
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Randy Terbush wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Should we be calling lingering_close() in timeout()?
> > > > 
> > > > Naah - if we've timed out we don't want to waste even more time trying
to
> > > > deliver stuff to them.
> > > > 
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > 
> > > > Ben.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

chuck
Chuck Murcko	N2K Inc.	Wayne PA	chuck@telebase.com
And now, on a lighter note:
I can read your mind, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Mime
View raw message