In response to "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> This is why the snmp protocol uses UDP, Bill.
> 
> You need to use something other than TCP for
> monitoring.

Well ... if I'm monitoring a server that uses TCP (PostgreSQL) I can't
rightly establish whether or not it's successfully accepting connections
unless I used TCP as well.

I understand where you're coming from, but I can't see how I can use
UDP to solve my problem.

If I have to go back to management and say, "I can't get tighter
granularity than 90s" then that's what I have to do.  I'm just trying
to do my research before I make that claim.

In the long run, it's possible that I'll have to put together some sort
of client/server monitoring model that has a component on each system,
so that I have tighter control over things, but this initial version
is required "right now", so I have to make do the best I can, then come
back and improve it when there's time (probably over the next several
months).  If I were trying to make it perfect, I wouldn't have started
with PHP ;).  I'm using PHP because the development cycle is very fast.
This gets me my "quick and dirty" solution, then I can take a little
time to look into how to really do it right.  I'm just trying to
establish exactly how "dirty" it's going to be.

Thanks for the input.

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bill Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 12:02 PM
> Subject: Reducing the timeout on a TCP connection
> 
> 
> >
> > I'm writing some monitoring scripts, and I'm having some trouble because
> > the TCP seems to wait 90 seconds before giving up on initiating a
> > connection.
> >
> > (The script is in PHP, testing a PostgreSQL database.  Neither PHP nor
> > libpq (which PHP's PostgreSQL support is based on) seem to have any
> > settings that can be used to adjust this timeout).
> >
> > If my memory of Stevens is correct, this is something that's set at the
> > OS level.  It doesn't seem as if it's a configurable value, however.
> > I guess I'm looking for confirmation on that point first.  If that's
> > the case, then I'll have to adjust my approach based on that knowledge.
> >
> > If it can be adjusted, can it be adjusted on a per-connection basis?  I
> > don't want to mess with timeouts on other sockets, _just_ this one
> > monitoring script.
> >
> > And of course, the final question: how would I adjust this setting if
> > it's possible?  If it's a sysctl, I'm missing it ...
> >
> > Suggestions?
> >
> > -- 
> > Bill Moran
> > Collaborative Fusion Inc.
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> >
> 


-- 
Bill Moran
Collaborative Fusion Inc.

****************************************************************
IMPORTANT: This message contains confidential information and is
intended only for the individual named. If the reader of this
message is not an intended recipient (or the individual
responsible for the delivery of this message to an intended
recipient), please be advised that any re-use, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message is prohibited. Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The
sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or
omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a
result of e-mail transmission.
****************************************************************
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to