[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081115155228.GZ24654@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:52:28 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Karl Pickett <karl.pickett@...il.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tcp_tw_recycle broken?
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:47:10AM -0500, Karl Pickett wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> > "Karl Pickett" <karl.pickett@...il.com> writes:
> >>
> >> May I just confirm.. is tcp_tw_reuse NOT dependent on receiving timestamps?
> >
> > The big problem is that both are incompatible with NAT. So if you
> > ever talk to any NATed clients don't use it.
> >
> > -Andi
> >
> > --
> > ak@...ux.intel.com
> >
>
>
> Hmph. Running the test again - after getting a little sleep -
> timestamps do indeed determine if tw_reuse/recyle work. I must not
> have let all the tw buckets expire before changing my timestamp
> settings last night.
>
> Since
> A. I don't want to rely on arbitrary web servers having timestamps
> B. People say it breaks NAT for clients, and the settings are global only,
>
> I will just set TCP_TIMEWAIT_LEN to 10 seconds and call it a day.
you should increase it a bit. I've encountered occasional issues at 15s,
but none at 20s.
> Sure would be nice if it was a tunable, so only the most heavily
> loaded customers could set it...
Indeed. other OSes (eg Solaris) ship with standard values and let us adjust
them.
Willy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists