Yes, i have observed this behavior after installing nagios.

As of now on the same server httpd apache web server  & tomcat is running.



On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Howard W. Smith, Jr. <
smithh032...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dhaval,
>
> I have seen suddenly so many established connections like below on my
> > system.
> >
> > There is http & tomcat both are running on the same machine.
> >
> >
> it might be best for you to inform the list with more details on any/all
> responsibilities/jobs/processes of this system of yours.
>
> http & tomcat = ? http = apache httpd? what all is tomcat doing? is there a
> web app running on tomcat serving many requests?
>
>
>
> > Previously it was not there. only last 3 days i am observing it. moreover
> > since then i have installed nagios on the same server to measure the
> > activity of the server.
> >
>
> are you saying that you observed this behavior prior to or after installing
> nagios?
>
>
> >
> > tcp        0      0 ::ffff:192.168.4.5:8009     ::ffff:192.168.4.5:36290
> > ESTABLISHED -
> > tcp        0      0 ::ffff:192.168.4.5:8009     ::ffff:192.168.4.5:41666
> > ESTABLISHED -
> > tcp        0      0 ::ffff:192.168.4.5:8009     ::ffff:192.168.4.5:52930
> > ESTABLISHED -
> >
> > Can some one explain me.
> >
>
> FYI, sometime within the last 2 to 3 weeks, I did a 'netstat' in Command
> Prompt on my development and production servers (Microsoft Windows Server
> 2008). This was really my first time doing this, and I recognized a lot of
> 'imap' connections on the production server. So, after some research
> (searching google/stackoverflow.com), I refactored my javamail code that
> was responsible for the many (or infinite # of) imap TCP connections
> showing up in 'netstat' output, and now, I no longer have the infinite # of
> imap TCP connections any longer.
>
> So, you really have to examine your 'system'. Evidently, the TCP
> connections are all considered as 'working as designed' (according to
> someone's coding/implementation or some third party tool/software).
>
> Howard
>

Reply via email to