Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 16:32:15 -0700 From: Studded <Studded@san.rr.com> To: Niall Smart <njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: tcp states and sysctl's Message-ID: <35660AFF.1E191CC6@san.rr.com> References: <E0ycyPn-0002lv-00@oak66.doc.ic.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Niall Smart wrote: > > Hi, > > I don't think a shutdown(2) sysctl is necessary. > > a) the BSD stack is currently compliant in this regard, if > anything need's changing it's the client. Finger-pointing doesn't help. If there is a problem we can deal with at the server level I want to be able to deal with it. > b) no-one has produced any evidence to show that all > these sockets in TIME_WAIT_2 are actully having a > negative impact in performance on the system. Actually, > I would seriously hope not, because otherwise this > is a relatively easy DoS. (Though probably not as > effective as a SYN flood.) My main concern is fd's right now (mostly due to a project I'm working on :). When exactly does the fd associated with a connection like this get allocated and when does it get released? Doug -- *** Chief Operations Officer, DALnet IRC network *** *** Proud designer and maintainer of one of the world's largest *** Internet Relay Chat server with 5,328 simultaneous connections *** Try spider.dal.net on ports 6662-4 (Powered by FreeBSD) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?35660AFF.1E191CC6>