Pádraig Brady wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:
This was an issue over a decade ago with SPECweb96 benchmarking. The
initial solution was to make the explicit bind() calls and not rely on
the anonymous/ephemeral port space. After that, one starts adding
additional IP's into the mix (at least where poss
Rick Jones wrote:
>> The first issue, requires a large timeout, and
>> the TIME_WAIT timeout is currently 60 seconds on linux.
>> That timeout effectively limits the connection rate between
>> local TCP clients and a server to 32k/60s or around 500
>> connections/second.
>
> Actually, it would be
The first issue, requires a large timeout, and
the TIME_WAIT timeout is currently 60 seconds on linux.
That timeout effectively limits the connection rate between
local TCP clients and a server to 32k/60s or around 500 connections/second.
Actually, it would be more like 60k/60s if the applicatio
As I see it, TIME_WAIT state is required for 2 reasons:
to handle wandering duplicate packets
(so a reincarnation of a connection will not be corrupted by these packets)
To handle last ack from active closer (client) not being received by remote.
If that happened, the server which is in L
