Re: compressed TIME-WAIT to be decomissioned
- In reply to: Chris : "Re: compressed TIME-WAIT to be decomissioned"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 16:37:02 UTC
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:16:09PM -0800, Chris wrote:
C> > * Who told that 2*MSL (60 seconds) is adequate time to keep TIME-WAIT?
C> > In 71d2d5adfe1 I added some stats on usage of tcptw and experimented a bit
C> > with lowering net.inet.tcp.msl. It appeared that lowering it down three
C> > times doesn't have statistically significant effect on TIME-WAIT use
C> > stats.
C> > This means that the already miniscule number of TIME-WAIT connection on a
C> > modern HTTP server can be lowered 3 times more. Feel free to lower
C> > net.inet.tcp.msl and do your own measurements with
C> > 'netstat -sp tcp | grep TIME-WAIT'. I'd be glad to see your results.
C> I think that should be:
C> 'netstat -sp tcp | grep TIME_WAIT'
C> fe; on the system I'm writing this from:
C>
C> up 15:19, coffee#
C> netstat -sp tcp | grep TIME_WAIT
C> 5 connections in TIME_WAIT state
I'm talking about statistics that I recently committed to CURRENT only:
# netstat -sp tcp | grep TIME-WAIT
3 times connection in TIME-WAIT responded with ACK
0 times connection in TIME-WAIT was actively recycled
0 times connection in TIME-WAIT responded with RST
They show were the TIME-WAITs actually used.
--
Gleb Smirnoff