Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 11:40:05 -0700 (PDT) From: "G.P. de Boer" <g.p.de.boer@st.hanze.nl> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/41552: TCP timers' sysctl's overflow Message-ID: <200208111840.g7BIe58v036990@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/41552; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "G.P. de Boer" <g.p.de.boer@st.hanze.nl> To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, g.p.de.boer@st.hanze.nl Cc: Subject: Re: kern/41552: TCP timers' sysctl's overflow Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 20:41:36 +0200 Just a little follow-up to raise another issue. I was having growing amounts of TCP-connections which idled in the LAST_ACK state. They didn't timeout. I found somebody who had this problem on 4.2 and applied his patch to the 4.6.1 source. That solved the issue. I looked at the tcp sources a bit, but since it's not really the easiest protocol on earth I couldn't find out if there was already some kind of timeout for LAST_ACK. My question: Does the problem with 'net.inet.tcp.keepidle' have as side-effect that connections in LAST_ACK state never time out or is there another issue? I can't hardly believe there's no timeout for LAST_ACK anywhere, but just curious. Here's a link to the original post about the LAST_ACK problem on 4.2: http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/freebsd/2001-03/0363.html With regards, G.P. de Boer To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200208111840.g7BIe58v036990>