Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:51:15 -0700 (MST)
From: Marc Slemko <marcs@valis.worldgate.com>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: lingering_close 
In-Reply-To: <199701141725.LAA20261@sierra.zyzzyva.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.970114105005.24103A-100000@valis.worldgate.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

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.
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Ben Laurie                Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435  Email: ben@algroup.co.uk
> > > Freelance Consultant and  Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
> > > Technical Director        URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
> > > A.L. Digital Ltd,         Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org)
> > > London, England.          Apache-SSL author
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>