Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 09:47:24 +0100 From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Robert Blayzor <rblayzor.bulk@inoc.net> Subject: Re: Sockets stuck in FIN_WAIT_1 Message-ID: <20080530084724.GA37672@walton.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <20080530081143.GI1028@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <483EA513.4070409@earthlink.net> <96AFE8D3-7EAC-4A4A-8EFF-35A5DCEC6426@inoc.net> <483EAED1.2050404@FreeBSD.org> <200805291912.m4TJCG56025525@apollo.backplane.com> <14DA211A-A9C5-483A-8CB9-886E5B19A840@inoc.net> <200805291930.m4TJUeGX025815@apollo.backplane.com> <0C827F66-09CE-476D-86E9-146AB255926B@inoc.net> <200805292132.m4TLWhCv026720@apollo.backplane.com> <CCBAEE3E-35A5-4BF8-A0B7-321272533B62@inoc.net> <20080530081143.GI1028@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 06:11:43PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: > A real solution would require more thought. I suspect you need a > mechanism similar to the keepalive timer that starts when there is > data queued and is reset when (some) data is sent - this would catch > your situation but I'm not sure if it's a general solution. I'm not > sure if one of the existing TCP timers could be (ab)used to achieve > this. There has been some talk about this sort of problem on the IETF TCP Maintainers list. I don't think any good conclusion was reached - whatever the solution was certainly needs to be tunable per-socket because this behaviour is perfectly valid in some situations but a bit of a pain in others. David.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080530084724.GA37672>