This sounds like a bug, when the client closes the connection it should
wake up the read listener, which will read -1 and then cleanly close the
socket.
Are the clients closing idle connections or connections processing a
request?
Stuart
On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 14:31, Nishant Kumar <nishantkumar35(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I agree that it's a load-balancing issue but we can't do much
about it at
this moment.
I still see issues after using the latest XNIO (3.7.7) with Undertow. what
I have observed it that when there is a spike in request
and CONNECTION_HIGH_WATER is reached, the server stops accepting new
connection as expected and the client starts to close the connection
because of delay (we have strict low latency requirement < 100ms) and try
to create new connection again (which will also not be accepted) but server
has not closed those connections (NO_REQUEST_TIMEOUT = 6000) and there will
be high number of CLOSE_WAIT connections at this moment. The server is
considering CLOSE_WAIT + ESTABLISHED for CONNECTION_HIGH_WATER (my
understanding).
Is there a way that I can close all CLOSE_WAIT connection at this moment
so that connection counts drop under CONNECTION_HIGH_WATER and we start
responding to newly established connections? or any other suggestions? I
have tried removing CONNECTION_HIGH_WATER and relying on the FD limit but
that didn't work.
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 7:47 AM Stan Rosenberg <stan.rosenberg(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 8:18 PM Nishant Kumar <nishantkumar35(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the reply. I am running it under supervisord and i have
>> updated open file limit in supervisord config. The problem seems to be same
>> as what @Carter has mentioned. It happens mostly during sudden traffic
>> spike and then sudden increase (~30k-300k) of TIME_WAIT socket.
>>
>
> The changes in
>
https://github.com/xnio/xnio/pull/206/files#diff-23a6a7997705ea72e4016c11...
are
> likely to improve the exceptional case of exceeding the file descriptor
> limit. However, if you're already setting the limit too high (e.g., in our
> case it was 795588), then exceeding it is a symptom of not properly
> load-balancing your traffic; with that many connections, you'd better have
> a ton of free RAM available.
>
--
Nishant Kumar
Bangalore, India
Mob: +91 80088 42030
Email: nishantkumar35(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
undertow-dev mailing list
undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev