Keepalive and IE (was: Re: 5 forwarded messages on FIN_WAIT_2)

[James H Cloos Jr <cl...@jhcloos.com>]

Randy> I run with Keepalives enabled.

Randy> I disable Keepalives for Mozilla/2.

This reminds me of something.

When I first upgraded our server to 1.2, I forgot to add the line to
disable keepalives for Mozilla/2, but I did increase the keepalive
timeout from ~5s to 30s.  I later had to reduce that to 20s to keep
the number of children needed under 256.  The net effect was that we
finally had sessions where multiple files were sent.  As many as 20 or
30 would occasionally showup, as reported by server-status.

Then I noticed the lack of the BrowserMatch line for Mozilla/2.  When
I added that, we went for hours w/o ANY sessions sending multiple
files, based on my irregular scans of the server-status output.

It seems IE does a better job than Mozilla at keppalives.  A much better job.

So, does anyone have a good regexp that matches ^Mozilla/2 but not
compatable?

Or -- posting first and testing later -- would this do?:

	BrowserMatch ^Mozilla/2 nokeepalive
	BrowserMatch ompatable !nokeepalive

-JimC
-- 
James H. Cloos, Jr.	<URL:http://www.io.com/~cloos/>
cloos@io.com		LPF,Usenix,SAGE,ISOC,ACLU

Re: Keepalive and IE (was: Re: 5 forwarded messages on FIN_WAIT_2)

[Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>]

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Rob Hartill wrote:

> On 17 Jan 1997, James H Cloos Jr wrote:
> 
> > This reminds me of something.
> > 
> > When I first upgraded our server to 1.2, I forgot to add the line to
> > disable keepalives for Mozilla/2, but I did increase the keepalive
> > timeout from ~5s to 30s.  I later had to reduce that to 20s to keep
> > the number of children needed under 256.  The net effect was that we
> > finally had sessions where multiple files were sent.  As many as 20 or
> > 30 would occasionally showup, as reported by server-status.
> 
> Has anyone done any tests on the effects of varying the keepalive timeout
> value ?. It could make interesting reading.
> 
> I've always had mine set 4 seconds.

It will screw with the way lingering_close does things by changing the
timeout that it uses.  Set it to an odd value, and lingering_close will
behave quite differently. (Yes, this is another hint that I would still
like to know why lingering_close uses the keepalive timeout... if no one
responds I am tempted to think it is because no one knows because it
shouldn't...) 

Re: Keepalive and IE (was: Re: 5 forwarded messages on FIN_WAIT_2)

[Rob Hartill <ro...@imdb.com>]

On 17 Jan 1997, James H Cloos Jr wrote:

> This reminds me of something.
> 
> When I first upgraded our server to 1.2, I forgot to add the line to
> disable keepalives for Mozilla/2, but I did increase the keepalive
> timeout from ~5s to 30s.  I later had to reduce that to 20s to keep
> the number of children needed under 256.  The net effect was that we
> finally had sessions where multiple files were sent.  As many as 20 or
> 30 would occasionally showup, as reported by server-status.

Has anyone done any tests on the effects of varying the keepalive timeout
value ?. It could make interesting reading.

I've always had mine set 4 seconds.