Dan Kegel writes:
> Takashi Richard Horikawa (horikawa@ccm.cl.nec.co.jp) wrote:
>> Since Linux 2.3.49 uses TCP/IP port number up to 65535,
>> the time length from using a socket to (re)using a socket
>> that has the same port number to that is longer than that
>> of Linux 2.2.14, which uses TCP/IP port number up to 32767.
>
> This is a benchmarking issue that happens only when you try
> to simulate too many clients with a single client machine, right?
> 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?
We are supposed to use approximately 40000 to 65535 according
to the Internet standards. (I don't recall exactly)
Why would we use fewer ports, especially when it leads to
reduced performance? We aren't even in the legal range.
IMHO we also need a way to force-expire old ports. Accepting
new connections is more important than waiting to make sure
the old ones are really dead.
-
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 - 23:23:55 EST