nanog mailing list archives
RE: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers
From: "Terry Baranski" <terry.baranski.list () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 17:30:16 -0500
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012, Ray Soucy wrote:
My question is basically, "how low can you go?" There seems to be consensus around 20 seconds being safe, 15 being a 99% OK, and 10 or less being problematic.
I'm trying to imagine how even 10 could be problematic nowadays. Have you found people reporting specific issues with 10? -Terry
Current thread:
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers, (continued)
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers William Herrin (Dec 05)
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers Mark Andrews (Dec 05)
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers Ray Soucy (Dec 06)
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers Miquel van Smoorenburg (Dec 05)
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers Mark Andrews (Dec 05)
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers Mark Andrews (Dec 05)
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers William Herrin (Dec 05)
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers Jon Lewis (Dec 05)
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers Fred Baker (fred) (Dec 05)
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers David Conrad (Dec 05)
- RE: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers Terry Baranski (Dec 05)
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers Ray Soucy (Dec 05)
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers Jon Lewis (Dec 05)
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers Ray Soucy (Dec 06)
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers Ray Soucy (Dec 06)
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers Kyrian (Dec 06)
- Re: TCP time_wait and port exhaustion for servers William Allen Simpson (Dec 06)