Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Unix TCP Equivalent Settings in Windows 2000?

Posted by Cliff on from the RWIN-SWIN-and-MTU dept.

sameerdesai asks: "While working on a project that required client-server functionality I was running into processes that wouldn't finish and eventually hang. While running packet tracing, I found out the tcp_fin_wait_2_timeout setting on the server side (UNIX) was too low for the Windows client, and after increasing that value it worked great. I am trying to apply a similar technique for a Windows server and was wondering what the equivalent registry key is for UNIX's tcp_fin_wait_2_timeout setting? Also, is there a guide out there that compares TCP setting in UNIX with Windows?"

65 comments

  1. Registry? by Tiersten · · Score: 1

    Knowing Windows, it's probably some obscure undocumented registry key somewhere which you need to twiddle... Fun :)

    1. Re:Registry? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Knowing Windows, it's probably some obscure undocumented registry key
      But windows is so easy to configure - everyone tells me that - you never need to edit plain text file in a directory called etc - unless you want to change the hosts file that is.

      They had TCP/IP handed to them on a plate by Berkeley, but still couldn't even get ping right.

      Let's face it - windows is a mongrel of many parts, it just has a pretty face to show the world.

    2. Re:Registry? by normal_guy · · Score: 1

      Are you being ironic? Unix forces you to edit crappily-documented text files scattered across the filesystem.

      --

      Linux: Free if your time is worthless.
  2. Reboot by tgeerts · · Score: 2, Funny

    You have to give the windows client time to reboot.

  3. Danger Wil Robinson... by hoggoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I will not deploy any software that requires me to start tweaking obscure registry values that change my server's basic TCP behavior. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

    I don't know what you are planning to do with this project, ie: sell it to the masses, make it open source, use it in house. Just keep this in mind.

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    1. Re:Danger Wil Robinson... by Curtman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thats a very unrealistic thing to say. There is no magical configuration that will be optimal in all circumstances. Tweaking your registry to try and get a few extra FPS out of Doom3 is one thing, but administering a large database with many users is something completely different.

    2. Re:Danger Wil Robinson... by Bravo_Two_Zero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whoa... that may be a little harsh. How is this different from sysctl settings in the BSDs? Granted, the registry is a bit more nebulous, since you can't see/set values with a simple `sysctl -whatever`. But most reg settings are binary on/off settings. And their changing can be batched for easy reproduction. It's unfair to deride a solution merely because it's not "your" kind of obscurity.

      Is it ideal? Certainly not. I'd never advocate changing window size on a whim (or even as a means of hiding system type, as some security gurus suggest). But it certainly isn't unreasonable.

      --


      Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.

    3. Re:Danger Wil Robinson... by Zapman · · Score: 1

      I would completely agree. These settings are optimized for a 'best fit' situation. Solaris for example is tuned mostly for a pure lan environment. We have an application that is distributed to various wan sites. I don't recall which setting we had to twiddle, but increasing a timeout saved a LOT of user headaches.

      These things are adjustable for a reason. Now they are not made easy to adjust (have to have some relativly arcane knowleduge to do so), but that's what a good sysadmin is for.

      --
      Zapman
    4. Re:Danger Wil Robinson... by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Whoa... that may be a little harsh. How is this different from sysctl settings in the BSDs?

      It's not - and the principle is the same. Changing default settings is a PITA and any software requiring it "just because" had better have a _very_ compelling reason for doing so.

    5. Re:Danger Wil Robinson... by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1
      Granted, the registry is a bit more nebulous, since you can't see/set values with a simple `sysctl -whatever`.

      I'm not familiar with sysctl. Can you explain why `sysctl -whatever` is "simple" and `reg query`, `reg add`, etc., in windows aren't? It seems like it would be equivalent.
      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    6. Re:Danger Wil Robinson... by bahamat · · Score: 1
      I will not deploy any software that requires me to start tweaking obscure registry values that change my server's basic TCP behavior.


      Big freaking deal. I'll just make the change without warning you in the setup program.

      HAND.
    7. Re:Danger Wil Robinson... by nial-in-a-box · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you won't knowingly. I'm no expert on just about anything but I'm sure there's been more than one software installer on Windows that modifies existing registry keys in order to make the installed software work. Odds are good you wouldn't know unless you were closely looking at what the install was doing. Odds are you wouldn't be doing that either. Which is not to say that it's either a good or bad idea to do, it's just hard because there really is no uniformity.

      --
      I am feeling fat and sassy
  4. The registry key for windows by esac17 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Param eters
    REG_DWORD
    30

    Setting this to anything below 30 decimal will just set it to 30 anyway though.

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/re sk it/en-us/default.asp?url=/windows2000/techinfo/res kit/en-us/regentry/58811.asp

    1. Re:The registry key for windows by sporktoast · · Score: 5, Informative

      Looks like you forgot to mention one thing, and the slashed up URL made it slightly more difficult to discover.

      There are about a hundred different entries contained in HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Param eters. The REG_DWORD in question is the one labeled "TcpTimedWaitDelay". Accepted values are between 30 and 300 (seconds).

      --
      In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.
  5. Re:Today on Ask Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RTFQ FFS! Idiot.

  6. Did you look here? by cnvogel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Maybe this document is enlightening? http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/resk it/en-us/default.asp?url=/windows2000/techinfo/res kit/en-us/regentry/33563.asp

  7. Re:Today on Ask Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Informative?

    You idiots! He's looking for the windows alternative to that.

    Morons, you and your moderator.

  8. Re:Today on Ask Google by DjReagan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now why didn't I think of looking in /proc on my Windows machine? Oh yeah.. that's right.. its because IT DOESN'T EXIST.

    Now, if I was doing on my Linux machine, that would work fine. But that wasn't what the guy's question was now, was it?

    --
    "When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
  9. Re:Today on Ask Google by Curtman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Its still a stupid story.

    Lets get an update on the KiSS -vs- MPlayer thing already.

  10. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was your post funny? NOT REALLY.
    Was your post helpful? NO.
    Was your post interesting? NO.
    Was your post original? NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST.

    Obviously people like you who aren't working in high pressure tech jobs (and by extension are probably still loafing in our parents' basements) can easily install Debian. But those of us in the real world with bosses screaming at us about deadlines don't have such luxury.

    Next time, don't bother posting and save us all the mental energy of not having to read your stupid crap.

  11. Fishy by ezzzD55J · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This state is the amount of time a TCP implementation will keep a TCP connection open that it has closed itself, i.e., sent a FIN for (it has no more data to send). However, the other TCP is still allowed to send as much data as it likes, until it sends a FIN (once that FIN is ACKked by this side, _then_ the connection is really released - all that remains is the blue/red army problem which isn't the topic now).

    So, what is this application doing relying on a timeout value in this phase? It would be terrible to be dependent on a TCP implementation in an application!

  12. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    likewise, fucktard

  13. User Friendly by dpilot · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because of course using regedit to tweak the value of HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Param eters is MUCH more intuitive and user friendly than doing something in /proc/sys/net/ipv4. Actually, I don't see any sort of tcp_fin_wait_2_timeout in there, nor do I see anything that looks like an equivalent parameter in the Windows help page. At least I see tcp_fin_timout in /proc, but don't see anything like it in the registry documentation page.

    On a slightly more usable scale, if I'm going to use an obscure interface, at LEAST I'd prefer it be in cleartext than some odd binary thingy that can only be edited with a special tool. OK, perhaps /proc and the Registry are equally binary, since the tools let you plug in equivalent numbers. But it remains that I can do directory navigation on /proc, and must use a special tool for the Registry.

    Even better, looking in /usr/src/linux/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl. txt I find that tcp_fin_timeout is indeed used to control the time to hold the socket in FIN-WAIT-2, so it turns out that it is indeed the correct parameter. That still doesn't help me find the same parameter in the Microsoft documentation, which is on the web, not on the system, and if I can't get the networking running, how do I search?

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:User Friendly by shufler · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ubscure interface?

      REGEDIT [/v|-v] [/s|-s] <FILENAME>

      [/s|-s]
      When a filename is specified on the command line, this switch is used to suppress any informational dialog boxes that would normally be displayed. This is useful when the Setup program for an application wants to execute REGEDIT.EXE with a .REG file, but does not want the user to be confused by any dialog boxes that are displayed.

      Put what you need in the file you wish to import.

      http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=htt p://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/Q 82/8/21.ASP&NoWebContent=1

    2. Re:User Friendly by dpilot · · Score: 3, Informative

      "REGEDIT " isn't the obscure part. Just IMHO everything about the bits and handles after that is about equally obscure between regedit and /proc. Both are equally unfriendly. But you can do /proc without a special GUID program, so also IMHO it wins the toss.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    3. Re:User Friendly by shufler · · Score: 2, Informative

      I never said Regedit was better! However, as mentioned many times above, /proc is most definately not available in Windows. The question was to find a solution for Windows. I was merely showing you could handle the registry using a command line utility (which is technically the very same program used to edit in the Windows GUI). It uses text files and simple CLI commands, which can be implemented from a batch or install process.

      For example, if the final solution for the original question requires a reg hack on every client it is installed on, this would be the easiest way to implement the change, short of using Registry objects (or their equivalent) in whatever programming language you're using.

      You can also view the registry without a GUI: there is an export switch (/E outfile.reg), which I beleive outputs the registry to a text .reg file.

      All these switches should work in every version of Windows that uses the registry -- that includes Windows 3.x.

    4. Re:User Friendly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The information in this article applies to:

      * Microsoft Windows 3.1
      * Microsoft Windows 3.11

    5. Re:User Friendly by shufler · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally, REGEDIT.EXE is present in every version of Windows since Windows 3.1.

      Forgive me for not providing a more current KB article. It still works, none the less.

    6. Re:User Friendly by dpilot · · Score: 1

      I understand your position. You gotta do what you gotta do, and you were trying to achieve the same results in Windows that you had in Linux.

      It's just that most times apples-to-apples comparisons come up, it's in the desktop arena and we get the cry, "Gimp ain't no Photoshop!" or "It's not Word!" So here's an apples-to-apples comparison, and granted it's not really desktop, but it IS a user interface issue.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    7. Re:User Friendly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the modern regedit does not "work the same" as in Win3.1 -- there is quite a few more commandline switches, for example.

    8. Re:User Friendly by shufler · · Score: 1

      I never said it "worked the same."

      However, the command switch /s (-s) for Silent, is a command switch that has been in every version of regedit.exe.

      Judging by the list of command switches in Windows 3.1 and the current list of command switches in the "modern" regedit, I would say that the command switches used have not changed at all (regedit.exe has changed, however).

      In any event, my original point, which I will reiterate here, with an example from the Microsoft KB (with respect to WINDOWS XP, Windows 200x, Windows NT, and Windows 98), is as follows: If you want to make changes to the registry, without user intervention, without an "obscure interface," and without using Registry Functions (from the Windows SDK), then you would use the following REGEDIT.EXE command switch: /S

      Verbosely:

      REGEDIT.EXE /S filename.reg

      Where filename.reg contains the changes.

      MS KB Article 310516 How To Add, Modify, or Delete Registry Subkeys and Values by Using a Registration Entries (.reg) File

    9. Re:User Friendly by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1
      But you can do /proc without a special GUID program, so also IMHO it wins the toss.

      Why is this "Informative"? This just isn't true. First, a GUID is a unique ID and has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Assuming parent meant GUI, it's still not true, as the standard windows commandline tools for manipulating the registry are quite decent.
      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    10. Re:User Friendly by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Even if there are command line tools for manipulating the registry, it's still a specialized tool. You don't even need a text editor for /proc, just shell built-ins. This becomes more significant on a rescue diskette, though I guess we're getting to the era of rescue CDs, where space is much less a problem.

      Oh, the GUID was a typo.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  14. Why bother tweaking registry values when you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    can change hard-coded values in Linux source code and recompile.

    1. Re:Why bother tweaking registry values when you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother tweaking registry values when you can change hard-coded values in Linux source code and recompile

      Maybe because you are using Windows 2000?

  15. tcp... windows?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did you try looking in the freebsd handbook .......

    bu bum tshhhh

  16. unix to windows rosetta stone by lylonius · · Score: 2, Informative

    rosetta stone: performance tuning

    this is conceptually similar to http://bhami.com/rosetta.html, but my table focuses on design choices, specifically performance and security tuning, not daily operations.

    note: i couldn't find a value for windows TCP FIN timeout (fin-wait-[12]). The TcpTimedWaitDelay that somebody else suggested is for the TCP TIME_WAIT.

  17. URL lives at nonstandard port 81 by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 2, Informative

    The URL you just referenced lives at nonstandard port 81:
    http://foureleven.org:81/rosetta-stone-performance -tuning.html
    Does the Google spider look for nonstandard ports?

    1. Re:URL lives at nonstandard port 81 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apparently so

    2. Re:URL lives at nonstandard port 81 by bedessen · · Score: 1

      The google spider doesn't care what port is in the URL. It's not like it's doing port-scans of machines randomly looking for web servers. All it cares about is that the URL is linked in a document somewhere. That's the whole point of Uniform Resource Locator, after all. If you have a document served on the normal port 80 it will never be indexed by Google unless it's referenced from some other page on the web. Likewise a document on a nonstandard port will be indexed just like any other as long as there's at least one page that links to it.

  18. Re:Solution by choi · · Score: 0, Troll

    do i maybe feel a *little* bit of frustration out of your post? if you call working 12hrs a day to meet insanse sw release dates a high pressure tech job or not is left as an exercise to you.

    so you'd rather not install debian because of deadline issues? kind of shows the level of technical experties you have...

    the rest of your post is just so ridiculous there's really no need to reply to it. did you even notice your own post applies to your very post more than it does to my post?

    p.s.: for someone not even having the guts posting with his username on a website you open your mouth maybe a little bit too wide...

    --
    Browse Slashdot at Funny+5, everything else -5. The only way to sustain it.
  19. I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as I know every platform that Windows runs on can also run Linux. Shouldn't it be easy to just reformat your Windows servers to install the necessary software to do what you need (Linux)? Is there something I'm not getting here, or were you perhaps unaware of this possibility? If the later is the case, I hope this post will be helpful to you.

    1. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shouldn't it be easy to just reformat your Windows servers to install the necessary software to do what you need (Linux)?

      Either you are a teenager who has never had a real IT job or you are an adult working in a field that has no relation to IT. I mean there is simply no way that someone who actually works in the real world on actual production servers would say something as stupid as "reformat and install linux."

    2. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either you are a teenager who has never had a real IT job

      I don't see what my age has to do with it.

      I mean there is simply no way that someone who actually works in the real world on actual production servers would say something as stupid as "reformat and install linux."

      Have you actually tried it? Installing linux really isn't that difficult. I have done it many times. I don't personally think it is "stupid" to suggest that the original poster could figure it out as he already mentioned that he has other servers running Linux.

      So, my question to you is: Why is it so hard to reformat and install linux in "the real world"? I'm not suggesting you are stupid or anything. I'm sure you've probably just been intimidated by Linux. Believe me, it really isn't that hard once you get started, and after a while running Linux is quite natural.

    3. Re:I don't get it by the+last+username · · Score: 5, Funny
      Sure. All you have to do is...

      Convince IT management it's a good idea

      Reduce Windows IT support headcount (make people redundant)

      Hire Linux IT support/developers

      Obtain budget for new hardware (I assume you didn't really mean that all the other apps on that server have to be ported from Visual Basic, so we're actually talking about a new server here)

      Explain increased staff costs and new hardware to senior management

      Explain free, "unsupported" software to senior management (or did you want funding for a Redhat support contract too?)

      Convince senior management it's a good idea

      Then either...

      Install Linux

      Port app to Linux

      Test

      or...

      Update CV (called a resume in French)

      Hit the job websites

      Phew! Well, at least you didn't have to...

      Change a single registry setting on an otherwise working system

      I'm happy running Linux at home (actually I run BSD, but that's besides the point), but I'd need a damn good reason before I'd suggest "just installing Linux" in a Windows-only shop.

    4. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm happy running Linux at home (actually I run BSD, but that's besides the point), but I'd need a damn good reason before I'd suggest "just installing Linux" in a Windows-only shop.

      Actually, a linux box to stand aside the system might be useful. To run things that linux does neatly. Like, ntpd, mail queues, dhcp (with diagnostic tools via pxeboot), firewalling, .. It's not like you need to impose it on anyone by shoving linux down their throats.

    5. Re:I don't get it by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      You just gave me a great reason why its a good thing I quite IT and went back to school. Even if it did moving back in with my parents to finish my degree.

      Do you need senior management approval to wipe your ass too?

      God the beaurocry?

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    6. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      I take it you didn't major in English then?

      </troll>

    7. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me that your "senior management" should be fired. They really pay people to support Windows? I thought all the GUIs and everything made such people unnecessary. Seems like a lot of budget could be saved by only paying people to support something that is of actual value (like Linux).

      P.S. They don't have a Windows-only shop. They already have a good operating system on some of their servers (as mentioned in the post).

      P.P.S. Isn't it a good idea to switch to Linux now? I can't imagine it will be long before most people are using Linux. Windows can't compete in any category with Linux, and clearly you wouldn't want to be the last company to benefit from the change over, would you?

    8. Re:I don't get it by the+last+username · · Score: 2, Insightful
      They don't have a Windows-only shop. They already have a good operating system on some of their servers (as mentioned in the post).

      Fair point. Although it isn't absolutely clear - the questioner had previously worked on a project with a Unix server component. They didn't say whether it was at the same company, or whether that company might have been working for two different clients.

      My point was that there are many factors you need to take into account before deciding to switch platform, technical and otherwise. The great-grandparent asked what the problem was; I was saying that the capability of the hardware to run Linux and the simplicity of the Linux install process (both identified as pertinent by the great-grandparent) are possibly the two most trivial factors.

      The questioner may now be working or consulting for a Windows-only shop, in which case hiring someone to support a non-standard (for that environment) system after the questioner is gone would be a significant cost. The server component for this project may require significant development to port to Linux - or may be closed-source and third-party. Maybe the project is to develop a server component that can be sold to Windows-only clients as well as to Linux-friendly clients. Or maybe it's a true heterogenous environment, and the decision to implement this particular project on Windows was made for sound technical reasons.

      As for the rest of your post, I'm a little confused. You claim to buy in to the B.S. about Windows being so trivial it doesn't even require support staff (MS don't claim that - they offer certification for support staff!), but then you claim that Windows can't compete in any category with Linux.

      That's an incredibly strong claim. Not just inferior to Linux in many categories or even inferior to Linux in every category. Can't even compete, in any category? I guess that explains why Windows has such a minuscule share of the market.

    9. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just so you don't get the idea that there really are people as dense as the originator of this thread. I posted that, and most of the follow up AC comments for fun (pretending not to understand the issues at hand). I feel bad. You put so much effort into your replies. Oh well, maybe some idiots out there actually buy into the whole Linux is better than Windows at everything, and they can benefit from reading your posts.

    10. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It actually is a good idea. I did some work for a trucking company a few months back. Their WinFactor software was just a matter of blowing away Win2000, and loading Slackware / Samba on it. No more problems / lockups.

  20. That's actually kind of funny by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 1

    Windows has networking that was taken straight from Berkely. i.e. \etc\drivers\hosts being similar to /etc/hosts and Windows using Berkeley socket APIs.

  21. Did your parents have any children that lived? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  22. fdisk... by El-Kelvinator · · Score: 1

    is always a viable option! So are: A) insert *distro of choice* install media B) change server side params C) live with it?

  23. fix by austad · · Score: 1

    I've found that disabling the delayed ACK on Windows servers generally fixes all problems I've had with Windows->unix communication.

    MS even has a technet article on it, actually a few.

    --
    Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
  24. Re:Today on Ask Google by RungeKutta · · Score: 1

    Hahaha, dork. Just admit you didn't read the question. It's ok you know, this is only slashdot.

    --
    You are free to do as we tell you.
    We want your soul.
     www.wewantyoursoul.com
  25. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, switch to decaf and quit being a sarcastic asshole.

  26. Re:Solution by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 1
    (and by extension are probably still loafing in our parents' basements)

    Ummm... I think my parents should be calling the cops if any of you are loafing around in their basement.

    --
    Un-news
  27. Re:Today on Ask Google by Curtman · · Score: 1

    I already did. Dork.

  28. Here's how to do it by swissmonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

    1) Go get the relevant hotfix for it (kb813056) from MS support : http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;813056

    2) Go to HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\ Services\TcpIp\Parameters and add the reg key TCPFinWait2Delay

    3) Set the reg key value to the appropriate delay you want

  29. Re:Today on Ask Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop calling names, you fucking idiot.