Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 18:03:42 -0400 From: Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> To: d@delphij.net Cc: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>, freebsd@chrysalisnet.org, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysctl kern.ipc.somaxconn limit 65535 why? Message-ID: <CAFMmRNxrBTV_wbU=KS%2BrZzPn7xbkcShjSv4tu5-EDZJSc7E2dA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <506CA848.5040604@delphij.net> References: <03e101cda197$326dc240$974946c0$@org> <CAJ-Vmo=CtC1SpsedP3nHJsrApTLzktGrjopeV0vXShr0FOUsmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGH67wT-v6B6NT1ETLX1V-w4OJDosst9xQ7UPE2d%2BVvFgosdPA@mail.gmail.com> <506CA848.5040604@delphij.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Or the TTL of TCP connections might be too high for the volume of >> connections received. Someone else on net@ reported that changing >> this value to more aggressively reap sockets improved performance >> greatly (at the cost that more connections potentially needing to >> be reestablished and/or getting dropped on the floor if things go >> too high volume). > > That's a different topic I think. On busy web servers it's fairly > typical to have a lot of TCP sockets staying in TIME_WAIT state for > extended time and the usual tuning would be to set MSL to about 2 > seconds at the expense of sacrificing slow clients who can't make > 3-way handshake in time (*), etc. The TTL of IP packet have nothing > to do with this though, and our default (64) is saner than many other > operating systems. Presumably RTT was meant here instead of TTL.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFMmRNxrBTV_wbU=KS%2BrZzPn7xbkcShjSv4tu5-EDZJSc7E2dA>