Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 08:37:02 -0800 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> To: Chris <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> Cc: net@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: compressed TIME-WAIT to be decomissioned Message-ID: <YeBVLsoGkEsVJEAI@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <feacfc86850c77ca87b3216b0b7adc17@bsdforge.com> References: <Yd8im/VkTU1zdvOi@FreeBSD.org> <feacfc86850c77ca87b3216b0b7adc17@bsdforge.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YeBVLsoGkEsVJEAI>