On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 11:16:06AM +0300, Michael Sternberg wrote:
> On 02 Sep 2002 11:07:55 +0300
> Gilad Ben-Yossef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I still did not got answer from anybody on how to create this situation. I
> mean how to write a faulty client/server application suite that will l
On the client, do everything as usual, using "close" to shut down the
socket.
On the server, when "read" returns zero, go back to handling the next
connection. Don't call "close" or "shutdown" on the socket.
If you call "shutdown" but not "close", you should get the same
behaviour with "CLOSE
On 02 Sep 2002 11:07:55 +0300
Gilad Ben-Yossef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I saw this once and it turned out to be a faulty web load balancer.
> Could it be that you have some firewall or similar in the way? COuld it
> be that someone is either attacking your server, or using your IP in a
> spoo
>
> Everybody on the Net keeps telling me that they are nessessary. I have a
> client/server utility, both sides are at my control. It works for some
> two-three weeks and then computer flooded with CLOSE_WAITS, I can not open
> more sockets and have to restart application (or reboot computer).
>
>Everybody on the Net keeps telling me that they are nessessary. I have a
>client/server utility, both sides are at my control. It works for some
>two-three weeks and then computer flooded with CLOSE_WAITS, I can not open
>more sockets and have to restart application (or reboot computer). I'm us
I think you missed my later email stating that my first one was a
mistake. I confused "CLOSE_WAIT" and "TIME_WAIT". The later is
unavoidable, the former is.
When you ask an application to shut down a socket, it sends a FIN out,
and enters "FIN_WAIT1". When that FIN is acknoledged, the socket
On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 19:00:49 +0300
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>2. What measures can I take to prevent them to appear ?
> >>
> For all practical purposes, nothing. They are necessary. You can make
> sure you never close the connection first ;-). If the connection was
> closed
My mistake.
I rechecked, and "lordsoth"'s reply is the correct one. Sorry about the
unnecessary noise.
Shachar
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Actually, that is not correct
>
> Replies to the original questions and to the replies are in the body.
>
> Lord Soth wrote:
>
>> On Sunday
Actually, that is not correct
Replies to the original questions and to the replies are in the body.
Lord Soth wrote:
>On Sunday 01 September 2002 14:03, Michael Sternberg wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry if I'm starting a long thread with this letter :)
>>I digged through the Google and did not find anythi
>
>
>On Sunday 01 September 2002 14:03, Michael Sternberg wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry if I'm starting a long thread with this letter :)
>>I digged through the Google and did not find anything that
>>will fully answer me to the next questions:
>>
>>1. How can I reproduce situation that my code will leave
On Sunday 01 September 2002 14:03, Michael Sternberg wrote:
> Sorry if I'm starting a long thread with this letter :)
> I digged through the Google and did not find anything that
> will fully answer me to the next questions:
>
> 1. How can I reproduce situation that my code will leave
>sockets
11 matches
Mail list logo
