Re: Sockets permanently in CLOSE_WAIT state.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: David S. Miller: "Re: [Q] How to set a page's protection from kernel land?"
• Previous message: Jeff Millar: "Re: interrupt latency"
• Maybe in reply to: Andy Sloane: "Sockets permanently in CLOSE_WAIT state."

> On Tue, Aug 18, 1998 at 12:45:21AM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
>
> > Reread your TCP books.
> > It's perfectly normal. Unless the sockets remain in CLOSE_WAIT more than say
> > 15 minutes...
>
> I'm well aware of the purpose of the CLOSE_WAIT state.
> tcp 1 0 aikon.incarnate.n:30687 aikon.incarnate.n:31337 CLOSE_WAIT
> tcp 1 0 aikon.incarnate.n:30655 aikon.incarnate.n:31337 CLOSE_WAIT
> tcp 1 0 aikon.incarnate.n:30625 aikon.incarnate.n:31337 CLOSE_WAIT
> tcp 1 0 aikon.incarnate.n:30562 aikon.incarnate.n:31337 CLOSE_WAIT
> tcp 1 0 aikon.incarnate.n:30501 aikon.incarnate.n:31337 CLOSE_WAIT
>
> These five sockets have been stuck in their state for about five
> hours now, and the process that controls them has been dead for as long.
> I've gone over my process list several times looking for the offending
> threads.

I stand corrected. I'll never skim through posts and read TIME_WAIT where
CLOSE_WAIT is written. This is definitely not normal.

Phil.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

• Next message: David S. Miller: "Re: [Q] How to set a page's protection from kernel land?"
• Previous message: Jeff Millar: "Re: interrupt latency"
• Maybe in reply to: Andy Sloane: "Sockets permanently in CLOSE_WAIT state."