Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.3/V2.0) id KAA17761; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:05:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from battra.telebase.com by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.3/V2.0) with ESMTP id KAA17754; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:05:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from wormhole.telebase.com (root@[172.16.2.129]) by battra.telebase.com (8.8.3/8.8.1) with ESMTP id NAA12448 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:05:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from spudboy.telebase.com (spudboy.telebase.com [172.16.2.215]) by wormhole.telebase.com (8.8.3/8.8.1) with ESMTP id NAA19524 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:05:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from chuck@localhost) by spudboy.telebase.com (8.8.1/8.8.1) id NAA16721 for new-httpd@hyperreal.com; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:05:44 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Murcko Message-Id: <199701141805.NAA16721@spudboy.telebase.com> Subject: Re: lingering_close To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:05:44 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Marc Slemko" at Jan 14, 97 10:51:15 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com 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.