Date:	Tue, 2 Oct 2012 08:09:27 -0400
From:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] tcp: introduce tcp_tw_interval to specifiy
 the time of TIME-WAIT

On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 03:04:39PM +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 09:16 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 02:33:07PM +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 10:23 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 04:41:01PM +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > > > Some customer requests this feature, as they stated:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	"This parameter is necessary, especially for software that continually 
> > > > >         creates many ephemeral processes which open sockets, to avoid socket 
> > > > >         exhaustion. In many cases, the risk of the exhaustion can be reduced by 
> > > > >         tuning reuse interval to allow sockets to be reusable earlier.
> > > > > 
> > > > >         In commercial Unix systems, this kind of parameters, such as 
> > > > >         tcp_timewait in AIX and tcp_time_wait_interval in HP-UX, have 
> > > > >         already been available. Their implementations allow users to tune 
> > > > >         how long they keep TCP connection as TIME-WAIT state on the 
> > > > >         millisecond time scale."
> > > > > 
> > > > > We indeed have "tcp_tw_reuse" and "tcp_tw_recycle", but these tunings
> > > > > are not equivalent in that they cannot be tuned directly on the time
> > > > > scale nor in a safe way, as some combinations of tunings could still
> > > > > cause some problem in NAT. And, I think second scale is enough, we don't
> > > > > have to make it in millisecond time scale.
> > > > > 
> > > > I think I have a little difficultly seeing how this does anything other than
> > > > pay lip service to actually having sockets spend time in TIME_WAIT state.  That
> > > > is to say, while I see users using this to just make the pain stop.  If we wait
> > > > less time than it takes to be sure that a connection isn't being reused (either
> > > > by waiting two segment lifetimes, or by checking timestamps), then you might as
> > > > well not wait at all.  I see how its tempting to be able to say "Just don't wait
> > > > as long", but it seems that theres no difference between waiting half as long as
> > > > the RFC mandates, and waiting no time at all.  Neither is a good idea.
> > > 
> > > I don't think reducing TIME_WAIT is a good idea either, but there must
> > > be some reason behind as several UNIX provides a microsecond-scale
> > > tuning interface, or maybe in non-recycle mode, their RTO is much less
> > > than 2*MSL?
> > > 
> > My guess?  Cash was the reason.  I certainly wasn't there for any of those
> > developments, but a setting like this just smells to me like some customer waved
> > some cash under IBM's/HP's/Sun's nose and said, "We'd like to get our tcp
> > sockets back to CLOSED state faster, what can you do for us?"
> 
> Yeah, maybe. But it still doesn't make sense even if they are sure their
> packets are impossible to linger in their high-speed LAN for 2*MSL?
> 
No it doesn't make sense, but the universal rule is that the business people
will focus more on revenue recognition than on sound design pracice.

> > 
> > > > 
> > > > Given the problem you're trying to solve here, I'll ask the standard question in
> > > > response: How does using SO_REUSEADDR not solve the problem?  Alternatively, in
> > > > a pinch, why not reduce the tcp_max_tw_buckets sufficiently to start forcing
> > > > TIME_WAIT sockets back into CLOSED state?
> > > > 
> > > > The code looks fine, but the idea really doesn't seem like a good plan to me.
> > > > I'm sure HPUX/Solaris/AIX/etc have done this in response to customer demand, but
> > > > that doesn't make it the right solution.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > *I think* the customer doesn't want to modify their applications, so
> > > that is why they don't use SO_REUSERADDR.
> > > 
> > Well, ok, thats a legitimate distro problem.  What its not is an upstream
> > problem.  Fixing the appilcation is the right thing to do, wether or not they
> > want to. 
> > 
> > > I didn't know tcp_max_tw_buckets can do the trick, nor the customer, so
> > > this is a side effect of tcp_max_tw_buckets? Is it documented?
> > man 7 tcp:
> > tcp_max_tw_buckets (integer; default: see below; since Linux 2.4)
> > 	The maximum number of sockets in TIME_WAIT state allowed in the
> > 	system.  This limit exists only  to  prevent  simple
> > 	denial-of-service attacks.   The  default  value of NR_FILE*2 is
> >         adjusted depending on the memory in the system.  If this number
> > 	is exceeded, the socket is closed and a warning is printed.
> > 
> 
> Hey, "a warning is printed" seems not very friendly. ;)
> 
No, its not very friendly, but the people using this are violating the RFC,
which isn't very friendly. :)

> Thanks!
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists