From nobody Thu Jan 13 16:37:02 2022 X-Original-To: current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF87195236A; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 16:37:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: from cell.glebi.us (glebi.us [162.251.186.162]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "cell.glebi.us", Issuer "cell.glebi.us" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4JZVT93MYvz4ZL8; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 16:37:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: from cell.glebi.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.glebi.us (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 20DGb2MM072267 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Jan 2022 08:37:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.glebi.us (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 20DGb2p4072266; Thu, 13 Jan 2022 08:37:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.glebi.us: glebius set sender to glebius@freebsd.org using -f Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 08:37:02 -0800 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Chris Cc: net@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: compressed TIME-WAIT to be decomissioned Message-ID: References: List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4JZVT93MYvz4ZL8 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N 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