Re: TIME_WAIT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Brian Behlendorf: "Re: Draft 01 of HTTP/1.0"
• Previous message: Jeffrey Mogul: "Re: Connection Header"
• Maybe in reply to: Jeffrey Mogul: "TIME_WAIT"
• Next in thread: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen: "Re: Connection Header"

At 6:18 PM 12/20/94, Jeffrey Mogul wrote:
>    I still think that it is better to keep the connection open for a small
>    amount of time as the server socket will go into TIME_WAIT state when
>    it is closed and then can't be reused before about 240 seconds
>    (recommended timeout accorsing to Simon)
>
>This not just Simon's recommendation.  This is a MUST (i.e., mandatory)
>requirement of RFC1122 (section 4.2.2.13).
>
>And, to clarify: what cannot be reused is the memory allocated to the
>connection state record; all other resources are reusable.  However, in
>most BSD-based systems, this memory usage can be significant (one
>mbuf).

Just a reminder. This issue only really applies to Unix implementations,
and not O/S2, VMS, Windows, Windows NT, Mac O/S, VM, or any other non-Unix
server and/or TCP/IP implementations not descended from the BSD network
kernel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Shotton
cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu                           "I am NOT here."

• Next message: Brian Behlendorf: "Re: Draft 01 of HTTP/1.0"
• Previous message: Jeffrey Mogul: "Re: Connection Header"
• Maybe in reply to: Jeffrey Mogul: "TIME_WAIT"
• Next in thread: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen: "Re: Connection Header"