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