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?"

6 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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!

  3. 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."

  4. 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.