Skip to main content

networking - How to diagnose large number of TIME_WAIT connections



We have a production issue with only one of our servers and have correlated slow performance to an abundance of sockets in the TIME_WAIT state. Without drawing this question into a huge backstory, we basically know that every time the server is slow, about 80% of the server's sockets are in this TIME_WAIT state, which of course we see by running a netstat). Specifically, because TIME_WAIT times out and go away, when our server is slow we see these TIME_WAITs crop up very frequently (about ever 5 - 10 minutes).



I did a little digging and see that TIME_WAITs occur when the server closes an active connection but keeps it around in case any delayed packets come through. Eventually TIME_WAIT times out.



Anyway to see exactly why an individual socket went into the TIME_WAIT state to begin with? This is CentOS 5 - does Linux log this info in var/logs anywhere, or is there any way to do a tcpdump and look for a specific pattern that leads to a TIME_WAIT? Thanks in advance.


Answer



Short answer - it is due to an app. The app creates sockets for a short time , closes them, then it immediately needs to open another socket. The sluggishness is related to the process(es) running out of sockets to use.




When creating a socket there are options - SO_REUSEADDR abnd SO_REUSEPORT. They have somewhat similar functions, but I suspect in Centos 5 SO_REUSEPORT is not available. Anyway, the optional setting on a socket call allows the port to be immediately reused.



So, a commonly used fix is to recode. It is probably a net app that connects for a few seconds then ends the session.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able