From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 29 13:02:55 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4761065678 for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 13:02:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rblayzor.bulk@inoc.net) Received: from mx0-a.inoc.net (mx0-a.inoc.net [64.246.130.30]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F5118FC22 for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 13:02:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rblayzor.bulk@inoc.net) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=inoc.net; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date; b=G3Nf3iK1uAznJqDJ4BJwRjsbJAJHjiu+OycfW79aOgID9i2ZFRqqVt1KqeKZkysitjl67XNUq+37KZBsm4Kzz+9hWuSTD/kmeflW9A/FHeI/b+HGmvRxfrafxNiQVljKGj+V9Z1xBFHLLKNg1hClJTgq/ppc9lvPGywnFShfu6s=; Received: from void.ops.inoc.net (vanguard.noc.albyny.inoc.net [64.246.135.8]) by mx0-a.inoc.net (build v8.3.29) with ESMTP id 157898787-1941382 for multiple; Thu, 29 May 2008 13:02:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-Id: <96AFE8D3-7EAC-4A4A-8EFF-35A5DCEC6426@inoc.net> From: Robert Blayzor To: sclark46@earthlink.net In-Reply-To: <483EA513.4070409@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:02:52 -0400 References: <1A19ABA2-61CD-4D92-A08D-5D9650D69768@mac.com> <23C02C8B-281A-4ABD-8144-3E25E36EDAB4@inoc.net> <483DE2E0.90003@FreeBSD.org> <483E36CE.3060400@FreeBSD.org> <483E3C26.3060103@paradise.net.nz> <483E4657.9060906@FreeBSD.org> <483EA513.4070409@earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sockets stuck in FIN_WAIT_1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 13:02:55 -0000 On May 29, 2008, at 8:44 AM, Stephen Clark wrote: > You know it really pains me when people blithely say just upgrade to > X.X where X is the latest release. > > It is generally just not that simple to upgrade - there are all > sorts of dependencies with other software that have to be considered. I don't mind upgrading this box, it does need it, and it's just a web server. But I see your point. What bothers me is that suggesting an upgrade "may" fix the problem. I really want to know that upgrading WILL fix the problem. I know it might not hurt, but if it doesn't address the primary issue at hand, I can spend time and resources trying to figure out why. Regardless since this is just a mirror web server, I'm going to run it on box using 7.0 and see what I get. I realize a lot of network code has changed from 4.x to 6.x (and maybe 7.x) so I'm going to give that a go. -- Robert Blayzor, BOFH INOC, LLC rblayzor@inoc.net http://www.inoc.net/~rblayzor/