lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: tcp_tw_recycle broken?
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:47:10AM -0500, Karl Pickett wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> > "Karl Pickett" <karl.pickett@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> May I just confirm.. is tcp_tw_reuse NOT dependent on receiving timestamps?
> >
> > The big problem is that both are incompatible with NAT. So if you
> > ever talk to any NATed clients don't use it.
> >
> > -Andi
> >
> > --
> > ak@linux.intel.com
> >
>
>
> Hmph. Running the test again - after getting a little sleep -
> timestamps do indeed determine if tw_reuse/recyle work. I must not
> have let all the tw buckets expire before changing my timestamp
> settings last night.
>
> Since
> A. I don't want to rely on arbitrary web servers having timestamps
> B. People say it breaks NAT for clients, and the settings are global only,
>
> I will just set TCP_TIMEWAIT_LEN to 10 seconds and call it a day.

you should increase it a bit. I've encountered occasional issues at 15s,
but none at 20s.

> Sure would be nice if it was a tunable, so only the most heavily
> loaded customers could set it...

Indeed. other OSes (eg Solaris) ship with standard values and let us adjust
them.

Willy



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-15 16:55    [W:0.460 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site