On 11/27/2018 10:17 PM, 배석진 wrote:
>>> we saw hundreds of not closed tcp session with FIN_WAIT1 and LAST_ACK.
>>
>> These sessions should have a timer, and eventually disappear.
>
> FIN_WAIT2 and TIME_WAIT have a timer.
> but FIN_WAIT1 and LAST_ACK are have too?
Sure. Otherwise we have a more
> What harm is caused by these stale sessions? I thought that was the
> intended behaviour.
>
our system stability guys concern about this.
when its count grows up too much, whether it can be harm to system or not.
> If you look at the original design discussions that led to the
> SOCK_DESTROY an
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:17 PM 배석진 wrote:
> >> we saw hundreds of not closed tcp session with FIN_WAIT1 and LAST_ACK.
> >
> > These sessions should have a timer, and eventually disappear.
>
> FIN_WAIT2 and TIME_WAIT have a timer.
> but FIN_WAIT1 and LAST_ACK are have too?
What harm is caused by
>> we saw hundreds of not closed tcp session with FIN_WAIT1 and LAST_ACK.
>
> These sessions should have a timer, and eventually disappear.
FIN_WAIT2 and TIME_WAIT have a timer.
but FIN_WAIT1 and LAST_ACK are have too?
> Do you have a test to demonstrate the issue ?
>
> I know Lorenzo wrote te
