On 12/12/07, Daniel Ouellet  wrote:

quoted text
> knitti wrote:

> > HTTP keep alives have nothing to do with it. If the socket is in

> > CLOSE_WAIT, the TCP connection can't be reused, the server

> > has sent its FIN and the client its FIN/ACK, but the server doesn't

> > have yet sent its final ACK.

>

> Well actually it does under normal operation. See, if you get a

> connection from a user and have keep alive setup. The socket will stay

> open to speed up the next request from the same users without having to

> establish a new connection, reusing the same socket for speed, but at

> the same time keeping that socket open and not ready to close yet for

> the next users. So, you see, if you have longer keep alive setup in

> httpd, you will reach the CLOSE_WAIT later on instead of sooner if you

> have shorter keep alive setup. See what I explain, may be not as well as

> I would like is the impact of PF and httpd together as well as the

> net.inet.tcp.xxx in sysctl setup. They all interact together in some

> ways and as such I also said it wasn't something to take isolated of one

> an other.

[...]

quoted text
> I think the CLOSE_WAIT state and time is a function of the OS stack, not

> the application itself, in this case httpd. I could be wrong here and I

> would love for someone to correct that for me if I do not understand

> that properly. But my understanding is this is control by the OS, not

> the application itself, other then the keep alive obviously in this case.

>

you tell me that there is some correlation between HTTP keep alives and

a socket ending up in CLOSE_WAIT for some time. That is the practical

observation. But I'm interested in whether this is by design or not.

RFC 2616 doesn't mention implementation details, and I can't see why

the socket implementation (OS) would want to keep a socket in

CLOSE_WAIT for some time (not sending a final ACK).
> > btw: I might be going off topic here, but I think it applies to

quoted text
> > OpenBSDs httpd. I won't sent any further mail to this thread

> > you tell me to shut up.

>

> I didn't do such thing. The original poster however should/may take the

> advice, or drop it. (;>

sorry for the confusion, I forgot to write an "if" after "thread"
--knitti