You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by jean-frederic clere <jf...@fujitsu-siemens.com> on 2002/06/25 11:19:35 UTC
random BOUND socket (was Re: 5.0 proposal).
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
>> Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't see that much to remove. I assume JNDI is the ever popular
>>> target, but I didn't notice it causing major problems (either
>>> performance or reliability), so I'd say it's not worth it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, I have a complaint... 4.1.3 tries to write into my conf
>> directory:
>> especially the tomcat-users.xml.new file (and since the directory is read
>> only, the VM falls over).
>>
>> Call it defensive administration, but I don't want my engine to write a
>> single file if it's not where I tell him to do: /tmp. And for sure it
>> must
>> not attempt to modify my tomcat-users.xml.
>
> >
>
>> Only _root_ can do that, and if this is one of those things you call
>> "features", I call it a big huge security hole.
>
>
> Craig calls it a feature, so talk with him :)
>
> The new realm does that. If you look at the server.xml, you will notice
> you can still use the classic memory realm from 4.0 which doesn't do
> that instead of the new user database realm.
>
>> Attached there is a nice output of my logfile.
>>
>> Plus, about that random BOUND socket I had, I noticed it's a leftover
>> somehow in some friggin' initialization stage...
>>
>> My ports are 8005 (control) and 8080 (http/coyote)
>>
>> When I start up the thing it's all clear. I start 4.1.2 and notice:
>>
>> Local Address Remote Address Swind Send-Q Rwind Recv-Q State
>> --------------- --------------- ----- ------ ----- ------ ---------
>> localhost.8080 localhost.47420 32768 0 32768 0 TIME_WAIT
>> localhost.47422 localhost.47421 32768 0 32768 0 TIME_WAIT
>> *.8080 *.* 0 0 24576 0 LISTEN
>>
>> Why in the world is TC first of all opening a serversocket on port 47421?
>> (this port number always varies) what's going on here?
>
>
> I don't get that kind of odd behavior on Windows/Cygwin, so I can't help
> much here.
> No extra port gets bound in my configuration.
I do see the following on my Linux:
+++
tcp 0 0 ::ffff:127.0.0:http-alt ::ffff:127.0.0.1:32893 TIME_WAIT
tcp 0 0 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:32892 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:8005 TIME_WAIT
tcp 0 0 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:32894 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:8009 TIME_WAIT
tcp 0 0 ::1:32891 ::1:32890 TIME_WAIT
+++
The last line varies:
+++
tcp 0 0 ::1:32889 ::1:32888 TIME_WAIT
+++
When Tomcat is stopped I do not have it.
>
> Remy
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: random BOUND socket (was Re: 5.0 proposal).
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>.
Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> Other that there are a lot of M$ ports (grr, XP ...), Tomcat is not
> misbehaving on that platform. I don't see any way so far to explain how
> it could be platform specific.
VM crap? I'll do some tests...
Pier
--
[Perl] combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion of different
sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with
the readability of PostScript. [Jamie Zawinski - DNA Lounge - San Francisco]
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: random BOUND socket (was Re: 5.0 proposal).
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
jean-frederic clere wrote:
>
> I do see the following on my Linux:
> +++
> tcp 0 0 ::ffff:127.0.0:http-alt ::ffff:127.0.0.1:32893
> TIME_WAIT
> tcp 0 0 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:32892 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:8005
> TIME_WAIT
> tcp 0 0 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:32894 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:8009
> TIME_WAIT
> tcp 0 0 ::1:32891 ::1:32890
> TIME_WAIT
> +++
> The last line varies:
> +++
> tcp 0 0 ::1:32889 ::1:32888
> TIME_WAIT
> +++
> When Tomcat is stopped I do not have it.
On Windows/Cygwin, after starting Tomcat with:
- Coyote HTTP/1.1 on 8080
- HTTP/1.1 on 8083
- JK 2 on 8019
Here's what I have (TC is PID 3596, obviously):
$ netstat -ano
Active Connections
Proto Local Address Foreign Address State PID
TCP 0.0.0.0:135 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 764
TCP 0.0.0.0:445 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 4
TCP 0.0.0.0:1025 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 816
TCP 0.0.0.0:1026 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 4
TCP 0.0.0.0:1028 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 1480
TCP 0.0.0.0:1484 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 980
TCP 0.0.0.0:1486 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 980
TCP 0.0.0.0:1627 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 1584
TCP 0.0.0.0:1862 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 1480
TCP 0.0.0.0:1884 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 1480
TCP 0.0.0.0:8019 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 3596
TCP 0.0.0.0:8080 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 3596
TCP 0.0.0.0:8083 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 3596
TCP 127.0.0.1:25 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 1584
TCP 127.0.0.1:110 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 1584
TCP 127.0.0.1:1027 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 1480
TCP 127.0.0.1:1027 127.0.0.1:1028 ESTABLISHED 1480
TCP 127.0.0.1:1028 127.0.0.1:1027 ESTABLISHED 1480
TCP 127.0.0.1:2401 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 1584
TCP 127.0.0.1:5180 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 980
TCP 127.0.0.1:8005 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 3596
TCP 192.168.1.102:139 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 4
TCP 192.168.1.102:1484 64.12.29.4:5190 ESTABLISHED 980
TCP 192.168.1.102:1486 64.12.27.244:5190 ESTABLISHED 980
TCP 192.168.1.102:1627 63.251.56.143:22 ESTABLISHED 1584
TCP 192.168.1.102:1862 209.197.105.94:80 CLOSE_WAIT 1480
TCP 192.168.1.102:1884 209.197.105.94:80 CLOSE_WAIT 1480
TCP 192.168.1.102:2391 208.255.92.10:110 TIME_WAIT 0
UDP 0.0.0.0:445 *:* 4
UDP 0.0.0.0:1029 *:* 944
UDP 127.0.0.1:123 *:* 816
UDP 127.0.0.1:1190 *:* 384
UDP 192.168.1.102:123 *:* 816
UDP 192.168.1.102:137 *:* 4
UDP 192.168.1.102:138 *:* 4
Other that there are a lot of M$ ports (grr, XP ...), Tomcat is not
misbehaving on that platform. I don't see any way so far to explain how
it could be platform specific.
Remy
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: random BOUND socket (was Re: 5.0 proposal).
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>.
jean-frederic clere <jf...@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote:
> I do see the following on my Linux:
> +++
> tcp 0 0 ::ffff:127.0.0:http-alt ::ffff:127.0.0.1:32893 TIME_WAIT
> tcp 0 0 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:32892 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:8005 TIME_WAIT
> tcp 0 0 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:32894 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:8009 TIME_WAIT
> tcp 0 0 ::1:32891 ::1:32890 TIME_WAIT
> +++
> The last line varies:
> +++
> tcp 0 0 ::1:32889 ::1:32888 TIME_WAIT
> +++
> When Tomcat is stopped I do not have it.
It seems that you are actually observing my same odd behavior... On Solaris,
when the TIME_WAIT expires, one of those sockets becomes "BOUND", as if
noone ever closed it...
Pier
--
[Perl] combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion of different
sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with
the readability of PostScript. [Jamie Zawinski - DNA Lounge - San Francisco]
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>