From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 4 01:09:05 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C4C16A400; Fri, 4 May 2007 01:09:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scrappy@freebsd.org) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F0E113C447; Fri, 4 May 2007 01:09:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scrappy@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.191]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED01D48A31F; Thu, 3 May 2007 22:08:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27287-02; Thu, 3 May 2007 22:09:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-89-241-126.eastlink.ca [24.89.241.126]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A99648A31E; Thu, 3 May 2007 22:08:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0DB604AE; Thu, 3 May 2007 22:09:17 -0300 (ADT) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 22:09:17 -0300 From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Robert Watson Message-ID: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Socket leak (Was: Re: What triggers "No Buffer Space) Available"? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 01:09:05 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm trying to probe this as well as I can, but network stacks and sockets have never been my strong suit ... Robert had mentioned in one of his emails about a "Sockets can also exist without any referencing process (if the application closes, but there is still data draining on an open socket)." Now, that makes sense to me, I can understand that ... but, how would that look as far as netstat -nA shows? Or, would it? For example, I have: mars# netstat -nA | grep c9655a20 c9655a20 stream 0 0 0 c95d63f0 0 0 c95d63f0 stream 0 0 0 c9655a20 0 0 mars# netstat -nA | grep c95d63f0 c9655a20 stream 0 0 0 c95d63f0 0 0 c95d63f0 stream 0 0 0 c9655a20 0 0 They are attached to each other, but there appears to be no 'referencing process' ... it is now 10pm at night ... I saved a 'snapshot' of netstat -nA output at 6:45pm, over 3 hours ago, and it has the same entries as above: c9655a20 stream 0 0 0 c95d63f0 0 0 c95d63f0 stream 0 0 0 c9655a20 0 0 again, if I'm reading this right, there is no 'referencing process' ... first, of course, am I reading this right? second ... if I am reading this right, and, if I am understanding what Robert was saying about 'draining' (alot of ifs, I know) ... isn't it odd for it to take >3 hours to drain? Again, if I'm reading / understanding things right, without the 'referencing process', it won't show up in sockstat -u, which is why my netstat -nA numbers keep growing, but sockstat -u numbers don't ... which also means that there is no way to figure out what process / program is leaving 'dangling sockets'? :( - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGOoe94QvfyHIvDvMRAj2LAKDXobcYr4VGOB+WfXYqCBTatZNZLQCfbyWa zsG/o1K3RM3ybjA5RLiSW5s= =8DJi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----