From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Oct 13 15:50:51 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id PAA15808 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 15:50:51 -0700 Received: from io.org (root@io.org [142.77.70.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA15803 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 15:50:46 -0700 Received: from flinch.io.org (flinch.io.org [198.133.36.153]) by io.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA06027 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 18:50:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 18:50:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Tao To: FREEBSD-HACKERS-L Subject: Persistent wu-ftpd 2.4's under 2.1.0-950928? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk I've got a 46DX2/66 with 64 megs and 2.1.0-950928 doing IRC and FTP server duty. I've noticed that the number of FTP connections always increases but hardly ever decreases (this is using the ftpcount utility included with wu-ftpd). Looking at the process table, it appears that there are many ftpd's that were started a day or more ago, completely swapped out (0K in the RSS column) but still hanging around. Netstat shows that a connection is still open to the remote side. Some are in FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT and a bunch are still in the ESTABLISHED state. Some have non-zero sendq's, etc. IOW, no consistent pattern from netstat. The inetd.conf line is this: ftp stream tcp nowait root /usr/libexec/wuftpd wuftpd -d -l -T 300 -t 300 The timeout settings are reasonable (5 minutes), but I don't think that is the problem here. From my end, it looks like some people have been connected for a few days. Is this a known problem (i.e., does ftp.cdrom.com have this problem?) I have a script that runs and scans for ftp-owned processes with 0K RSS and zaps them, but obviously this isn't the right solution. On the up side, this 486 is still very snappy even with 7 interactive users, 132 FTP clients (58 that are "dead") and 107 IRC clients. Load average usually hovers around 0.20 or so. :) -- Brian Tao System Administrator, Internex Online Inc. "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"