Unix TCP Equivalent Settings in Windows 2000?
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?"
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
Is HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Param eters
e sk it/en-us/default.asp?url=/windows2000/techinfo/res kit/en-us/regentry/58811.asp
REG_DWORD
30
Setting this to anything below 30 decimal will just set it to 30 anyway though.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/r
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
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"
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!
can change hard-coded values in Linux source code and recompile.
Ubscure interface?
.REG file, but does not want the user to be confused by any dialog boxes that are displayed.
t p://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/Q 82/8/21.ASP&NoWebContent=1
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
Put what you need in the file you wish to import.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=ht
"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.
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.