httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] lingering_close performance improvement
Date Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:59:57 GMT
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >I seem to recall that there were many(?) cases where if people recompiled
> >with NO_LINGCLOSE the FIN_WAIT_2 problem "went away"... Now this may
> >have been fixed with the latest rev to l_c(), but maybe not.
> No, it just appeared to go away -- I tested both and it made no difference
> in terms of the client-holding-connection-open FIN_WAIT_2 problem.
> The only thing that reduces that problem is disabling keep-alive,
> or adding a FIN_WAIT_2 timeout.

I recall that the problem went away on some servers if they simply
recompiled with NO_LINGCLOSE... I'm guessing I'm remembering wrong.
> >(although there still seems to be some disagreement on whether
> >l_c() is even needed according to the 1.1 specs) but if not then
> >we can't blame it on keepalive clients.
> Well, the only disagreement I've seen is the desire to ignore the
> problem and hope it goes away on its own.  It won't -- both the TCP
> and HTTP/1.1 specs anticipate that it will be a normal occurrence
> if the server wishes to ensure reliable delivery of data after a server
> close in an environment where the client might send additional data.

S'funny... I thought that the snippet of the spec recently posted
alluded to the fact that Apache could close the connection, without
the drain-and-wait and that clients would/should handle that

      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services           |
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"

View raw message