[En-Nut-Discussion] CLOSE-WAIT Status TCP sockets

[Ralph Mason]

I am trying to track it down as to why it happens.

All I do know for sure at this point is I ended up with some threads on the
close-wait status, sitting forever.

These hanging connections came from teraterm telnet sessions.

I will investigate further.

I also noticed that if the TCP state machine isn't started then incoming
requests will use all but 2kb of memory.  This could happen on a system that
uses udp only.


Regards
Ralph
> -----Original Message-----
> From: en-nut-discussion-admin at egnite.de
> [mailto:en-nut-discussion-admin at egnite.de]On Behalf Of Harald Kipp
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 July 2003 8:23
> To: en-nut-discussion at egnite.de
> Subject: Re: [En-Nut-Discussion] CLOSE-WAIT Status TCP sockets
>
>
> Ralph,
>
> Isn't CLOSE-WAIT indicating, that the socket needs to be closed
> by the application?
>
>
> >If so should close wait be added to the list of sockets that get
> destroyed
> >after a time wait?
>
> There may be a bug in the stack, which keeps the socket in
> CLOSE-WAIT even after the application closed the socket.
> IMHO it would make more sense in that case to fix the bug.
>
> Can you please check if your application reliably closes
> the socket?
>
> Harald
>
> _______________________________________________
> En-Nut-Discussion mailing list
> En-Nut-Discussion at egnite.de
> http://www.egnite.de/mailman/listinfo/en-nut-discussion
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/2003
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/2003