From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 8 08:24:10 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE3837B405; Thu, 8 May 2003 08:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailspool.ops.uunet.co.za (mailspool.ops.uunet.co.za [196.7.0.140]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E758543FBF; Thu, 8 May 2003 08:24:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ianf@wcom.com) Received: from copernicus.so.cpt1.za.uu.net ([196.30.72.32]) by mailspool.ops.uunet.co.za with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 19DnFX-0003H3-00; Thu, 08 May 2003 17:23:59 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=wcom.com) by copernicus.so.cpt1.za.uu.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 19DnFJ-000Caz-00; Thu, 08 May 2003 17:23:45 +0200 To: Lars =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6ller?= In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 08 May 2003 16:48:24 +0200." <200305081448.h48EmO628174@rayadm.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de> References: <200305081448.h48EmO628174@rayadm.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de> From: "Ian Freislich" X-image-url: http://www.digs.iafrica.com/gallery/ian-small.gif X-BOFH: true X-LART: Depleted uranium X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. You have been deleted Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 17:23:45 +0200 Message-ID: <48420.1052407425@wcom.com> Sender: ianf@wcom.com cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: Jeffrey Hsu cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Please, Urgent: Need ideas/help to solve PR bin/51586 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 15:24:11 -0000 Lars =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6ller?= wrote: > > -anf inet |grep -v TIME_WAIT' on machine2 after you get the timeout > > connecting to machine2? Is the tcp *.514 LISTEN line missing after > > No, as you can see above. It's possibe to connect from a third machine > to machine2 during the timeout/hang. Hmm, I can't seem to reproduce the inetd service termination any more so that may be a red herring. > > you get the timeout. What do you get in your messages file on > > machine2 (the one running the rsh server)? I suspect that you're > > rshd[83865]: connect second port 927: Operation timed out That is definitely different to what I get, so I guess there is quite a difference between 4.8-STABLE Sun Apr 27 and 4.8-RELEASE in the networking code. I've traced where it fails in the -STABLE code - line 123 of /usr/src/lib/libc/rpc/bindresvport.c (rev 1.12). It's a bind with sin_addr=INADDR_ANY and ports in IP_PORTRANGE_LOW. The kernel "Can't assign requested address" because it probably thinks none are available they're all in TIME_WAIT. Not that that helps you very much. Perhaps -STABLE is slightly better because you get an immediate fail when there are "no" ports and it starts working again when there are. Also if you set net.inet.tcp.msl=300, the connections leave TIME_WAIT a lot sooner and where it would die after about 30 seconds, I haven't yet seen had a failure after several minutes. Ian