Skip to main content

Port Exhaustion and IIS 8 on Server 2012 R2

My company has a highly utilized web server running IIS
8.5 on Server 2012 R2



At any given time, there
are 34,000 connections to IIS and 200 requests per second. We also have an SFTP service
running on the machine that has an average of 100 connected users. Everyone once in a
while our monitoring system will timeout and FTP users are unable to connect. I've been
doing a lot of research on port exhaustion, however, I cannot find any definite
documentation on ephemeral port exhaustion with IIS.



From my understanding, when a connection is
made to the HTTP service, the response still comes from port 80, same with the FTP
service. We do run ASP.NET sites that connect REST services on the same box, I know
those connections would use an ephemeral port, but I'm not sure that it's using all
16,384.



I have used several scripts online to
detect port exhaustion
href="http://blogs.technet.com/b/clinth/archive/2013/08/09/detecting-ephemeral-port-exhaustion.aspx"
rel="nofollow
noreferrer">http://blogs.technet.com/b/clinth/archive/2013/08/09/detecting-ephemeral-port-exhaustion.aspx
- Script rarely shows any ephemeral port usage above 2%
href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/debuggingtoolbox/archive/2010/10/11/powershell-script-troubleshooting-for-port-exhaustion-using-netstat.aspx"
rel="nofollow
noreferrer">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/debuggingtoolbox/archive/2010/10/11/powershell-script-troubleshooting-for-port-exhaustion-using-netstat.aspx
This
script will show some connections waiting for
ports.




Ports Used:
35,084
Ports Waiting:
654


Of the connections
waiting for a port, the following are from the local
machine



127.0.0.1 44 waiting of
110 total
(40%)



My
question is, is the server suffering from port exhaustion? When I export a netstat -n
and filter by ephemeral ports, I only see 286 in use. The Web Server (80 and 443)
account for 32,300 of the connections and FTP accounts for
450.



Is there a connection limit on IIS
8.5?



[edit]
Of the ports in use, here
is the breakdown by
state



ESTABLISHED
32,394
TIME_WAIT 710
CLOSING 16

FIN_WAIT_1
2
FIN_WAIT_2 3
LAST_ACK 14
SYN_RECEIVED
238

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