httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] lingering_close performance improvement
Date Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:47:06 GMT
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, 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.

No, it DID go away in many cases.  I have a dozen reports of NO_LINGCLOSE
eliminating the problem.  The keepalive bit does not explain the
difference between 1.1 and 1.2 nor does it explain why people still had
problems when they disabled keepalives.  There is another problem.

> The other FIN_WAIT_2 problem, of mixing timeout and abort and l_c(),
> was fixed in 1.2b6 and has not been seen since.

I'm not sure about that.

> The only concern we have with l_c() right now is the length of the
> timeout and the fact that it might block in a read(), both of which
> are fixed in my patch which people have failed to vote on.

Personally, I'm not sure if 1s is long enough.  If the RTT is greater than
1s (and it often is for dialin users downloading multiple pages) then the
same problem would seem to be possible.  

View raw message