Ian Clarke <i.clarke at dynamicblue.com> wrote:
> Has anyone noticed things getting quite quiet once their node is removed
> from inform.php?
> 
> I am concerned that once nodes are removed from inform.php the
> mechanisms we have implemented to ensure that other nodes remain aware
> of them (and are thus able to make use of their storage-space) may not
> be sufficient - although the only evidence I have for this so-far is
> that my node's log was a string of "writing datastore ot disk" messages,
> having been quite active yesterday when I reactivated it.

I have the suspicion that this may result from a TCP problem.  My node is
having this problem too, and when I try to connect to it manually, no
ConnectionHandler entry appears in the log.  I got suspicious and checked
using netstat:


longitude.doc.ic.ac.uk% netstat
Active Internet connections (w/o servers)
Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address           Foreign Address         State   
tcp        1      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 n43-129.dhnet.ufl.:4112 CLOSE_WAIT
tcp        1      0 localhost:19114         localhost:25890         CLOSE_WAIT
tcp        0      0 longitude.doc.ic.:25891 cm-24-142-61-146.:19114 ESTABLISHED
tcp        0      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 cm-24-142-61-146.:62307 ESTABLISHED
tcp    40533      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 danky-1.dsl.speake:1470 ESTABLISHED
tcp    49385      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 n43-129.dhnet.ufl.:4117 ESTABLISHED
tcp        0      0 longitude.doc.ic.:25897 angry.gangofsnail:19114 ESTABLISHED
tcp        0      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 147-89.waldenweb.c:4111 ESTABLISHED
tcp        1      0 longitude.doc.ic.:25899 danky-1.dsl.speak:19114 CLOSE_WAIT
tcp        0      1 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 rm01-24-29-193-145:2093 CLOSE    
tcp        0      1 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 rm01-24-29-193-145:2093 CLOSE    
tcp        1      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 rm01-24-29-193-145:2093 CLOSE_WAIT
tcp        0      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 226-132.adsl2.avt:18912 ESTABLISHED
tcp        1      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 rm01-24-29-193-145:2184 CLOSE_WAIT
tcp        0      1 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 cma-d0095.resnet.u:2166 CLOSE    
tcp        0      1 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 cma-d0095.resnet.u:2166 CLOSE    
tcp        0      1 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 cma-d0095.resnet.u:2166 CLOSE    
tcp        1      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 cma-d0095.resnet.u:2166 CLOSE_WAIT
tcp        1      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 rm01-24-29-193-145:2341 CLOSE_WAIT
tcp        1      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 rm01-24-29-193-145:2416 CLOSE_WAIT
tcp        1      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 rm01-24-29-193-145:2552 CLOSE_WAIT
tcp        1      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 rm01-24-29-193-145:2650 CLOSE_WAIT
tcp        1      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 rm01-24-29-193-145:2688 CLOSE_WAIT
tcp    39181      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 rm01-24-29-193-145:2809 CLOSE_WAIT
tcp        0  29215 longitude.doc.ic.:25908 angry.gangofsnail:19114 ESTABLISHED
tcp        1      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 rm01-24-29-193-145:2857 CLOSE_WAIT
tcp        1      0 longitude.doc.ic.:25933 danky-1.dsl.speak:19114 CLOSE_WAIT
tcp        1      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 rm01-24-29-193-145:2893 CLOSE_WAIT
tcp        0      0 longitude.doc.ic.:26136 ro02-24-29-236-15:19114 ESTABLISHED
tcp        0      0 longitude.doc.ic.:26196 nas-32-156.chicag:19114 ESTABLISHED
tcp        0      1 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 142.92.129.37:3526      CLOSE    
tcp        0      1 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 142.92.129.37:3526      CLOSE    
[...]
tcp      106      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 chiba.3jane.net:1361    ESTABLISHED
tcp      107      0 longitude.doc.ic.:19114 place.org:2839          ESTABLISHED


This is just the first page, but you get the idea.  I had over 300
connections open!  The ESTABLISHED ones I think are not being closed for
some reason, the CLOSE_WAIT ones are supposed to be closed but are hanging
around.

Now I don't know what would cause the the CLOSE_WAIT problem... here's some
maybe-relevant hints I found on mud-dev and linux-kernel -- I'm not sure
what they mean, though.

theo


--- forwarded message ---
Date: 20 Aug 1998 23:27:36 +0200
>From: Andi Kleen <ak#muc,de>
To: Andy Sloane <andude#guildsoftware,com>
Cc: linux-kernel#vger,rutgers.edu, ak#muc,de
Subject: Re: Sockets permanently in CLOSE_WAIT state.

This is a known 2.0 deficiency, it doesn't do thread locking in net/socket.c.
You may say that sockets are not really thread-safe in 2.0
This is fixed in 2.1, and I can't reproduce it with 2.1.115.

-Andi


--- forwarded message ---
Subject: Socket stuck in CLOSE_WAIT state
>From: Alex Buell <alex.buell at tahallah.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 23:30:22 +0100 (GMT)

There's a DoS attack going around on the net: this particular attack
focuses on IDENT (port 113) and leaves sockets in CLOSE_WAIT state.

Here's an example (from netstat -ntu)

tcp 34 0 194.222.9.116:113 204.60.30.67:1386 CLOSE_WAIT

Seems if there's data in the queue, the socket will never close.
This is on 2.2.6.

Someone else reported the same thing with 2.2.5, he had a socket in 
CLOSE_WAIT over 7 days!

Cheers,
Alex


_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev

Reply via email to