Re: tcp_tw_recycle broken?

[Willy Tarreau]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:47:10AM -0500, Karl Pickett wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > "Karl Pickett" <karl.pickett@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> May I just confirm.. is tcp_tw_reuse NOT dependent on receiving timestamps?
> >
> > The big problem is that both are incompatible with NAT. So if you
> > ever talk to any NATed clients don't use it.
> >
> > -Andi
> >
> > --
> > ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> 
> 
> Hmph.  Running the test again - after getting a little sleep -
> timestamps do indeed determine if tw_reuse/recyle work.  I must not
> have let all the tw buckets expire before changing my timestamp
> settings last night.
> 
> Since
> A. I don't want to rely on arbitrary web servers having timestamps
> B. People say it breaks NAT for clients, and the settings are global only,
> 
> I will just set TCP_TIMEWAIT_LEN to 10 seconds and call it a day.

you should increase it a bit. I've encountered occasional issues at 15s,
but none at 20s.

> Sure would be nice if it was a tunable, so only the most heavily
> loaded customers could set it...

Indeed. other OSes (eg Solaris) ship with standard values and let us adjust
them.

Willy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/