On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 17:50:36 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Friday 02 Sep 2011 15:34:30 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:40:22 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > On Friday 02 Sep 2011 13:20:39 Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 00:23:00 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:02:14 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:44:17 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote: > > > > > > > netstat (netstat -pnat | grep java) shows 213 connections > > > > > > > to my fproxy at 127.0.0.1:8888, in a "CLOSE_WAIT" state. > > > > > > > I only noticed this after I could no longer access fproxy > > > > > > > -- probably because of some thread or connection limit. > > > > > > > I'm not exactly sure how to reproduce this -- it's not > > > > > > > simply a matter of opening a connection to fproxy. > > > > > > > > > > > > False alarm. I think my freenet wget spider got out of > > > > > > control. Apologies. > > > > > > > > > > Upon further consideration, I think it might actually be a > > > > > bug. For one thing, this never happened with earlier > > > > > pre-1401ish versions. For another thing, why are there so > > > > > many sockets open, when my wget client has long since closed > > > > > and exited? (it has been about half an hour now > > > > > -- I'll provide updates if they ever do close.) CLOSE_WAIT > > > > > apparently means fproxy got the FIN signal from my wget, but > > > > > didn't close it's end? > > > > > > > > > > I'm still not sure exactly how this bizarre behavior (of not > > > > > closing sockets) starts -- because if I restart freenet, and > > > > > do a simple wget transaction, the socket does get properly > > > > > closed. > > > > > > > > All those "HTTP socket handlers" are still open and consuming > > > > freenet threads. They were initiated by "wget > > > > localhost:8888/USK..." type calls > > > > -- and they probably failed because the sites were old. Normal > > > > browser access to control localhost:8888 does still close the > > > > socket properly. > > > > > > Well what are they doing then? Still running the requests? This > > > is a fundamental problem with fetching stuff over HTTP from > > > Freenet with a low timeout - if your tool moves on to add more > > > requests, the old requests haven't failed, they are still going. > > > > They will go on forever? Fproxy will never close them? (Sounds > > pretty easy to DDOS that?) And why didn't this happen before? > > No, they go on until they complete. There is a limit on the total > number of connections handling requests, iirc the default is 100.
Well, I just checked -- all the 80 connections that were opened a week ago are still open and still in CLOSE_WAIT. What does "until they complete" mean? Also, if I kept my wget spider running, it could easily use 213 or over, like it did when I first reported the problem, and eventually not let me back into fproxy :s. How does that fit into the 100 request limit? (Why isn't there a time limit, or an hop-limit again?) > > > Having said that it may eventually be possible to detect > > > connection closed - in 0.5 there was a hack for it. > > > > I think tcp's CLOSE_WAIT means fproxy should have already gotten a > > "close" signal, no? > > Surprisingly enough, we are not directly generating TCP packets > here... Huh? I meant, (I'm guessing), didn't my wget already send a "FIN" tcp message to fproxy at some point, which is what put those connections into CLOSE-WAIT? (a la http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_TCPConnectionTermination-2.htm ), or am I missing something? _______________________________________________ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
