On 01/17/2017 10:37 AM, Jason Baron wrote:
From: Jason Baron <jba...@akamai.com>
Using a Mac OSX box as a client connecting to a Linux server, we have found
that when certain applications (such as 'ab'), are abruptly terminated
(via ^C), a FIN is sent followed by a RST packet on tcp connections. The
FIN is accepted by the Linux stack but the RST is sent with the same
sequence number as the FIN, and Linux responds with a challenge ACK per
RFC 5961. The OSX client then sometimes (they are rate-limited) does not
reply with any RST as would be expected on a closed socket.
This results in sockets accumulating on the Linux server left mostly in
the CLOSE_WAIT state, although LAST_ACK and CLOSING are also possible.
This sequence of events can tie up a lot of resources on the Linux server
since there may be a lot of data in write buffers at the time of the RST.
Accepting a RST equal to rcv_nxt - 1, after we have already successfully
processed a FIN, has made a significant difference for us in practice, by
freeing up unneeded resources in a more expedient fashion.
Drifting a bit, and it doesn't change the value of dealing with it, but
out of curiosity, when you say mostly in CLOSE_WAIT, why aren't the
server-side applications reacting to the read return of zero triggered
by the arrival of the FIN?
happy benchmarking,
rick jones
