In message <38E4D8E7.9A73CF84@alumni.caltech.edu>, Dan Kegel writes:
>Takashi Richard Horikawa (horikawa@ccm.cl.nec.co.jp) wrote:
>This is a benchmarking issue that happens only when you try
>to simulate too many clients with a single client machine, right?
Exactly. I think that hitting TIME_WAIT'er by a connection request is
quite rare in real-world WEB environment, in which many clients
having individual IP addresses issue connection requests.
I would like to point out that the problem that I found occurs only when
a connection request hits a TIME_WAIT'er socket whose sock_readers
is not zero. I summarize my finding in the following.
Linux Connection Value of Result
Version request sk->sock_readers (Reply the request?)
----------------------------------------------------------------
2.2.14 Not hit TIME_WAIT'er - OK
2.2.14 Hits TIME_WAIT'er zero OK
2.2.14 Hits TIME_WAIT'er non-zero NG (Does not
reply the request)
It may be odd that a TIME_WAIT'er has non-zero sockreaders.
>(I've added a note about this at
> http://www.kegel.com/mindcraft_redux.html#tcp3 )
Thank you for introducing my article.
>Did you try to tell 2.2.14 to use a larger port range, e.g.
> # echo 1024 65535 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range
> # cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range
> 1024 65535
>on your unpatched runs?
Thank you for your advice. I'll try.
--------
name: Takashi Richard Horikawa
(NEC C&C Research Lab.s)
E-mail: horikawa@ccm.cl.nec.co.jp
Tel.: +81-44-856-2079
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 23:16:50 EST