Re: Doubts about listen backlog and tcp_max_syn_backlog

[Leandro Lucarella <leandro.lucarella@sociomantic.com>]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:01:09PM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
> >>If that is being overflowed, I believe you should be seeing something like:
> >>
> >>     14 SYNs to LISTEN sockets dropped
> >>
> >>in the output of netstat -s on the system on which the server
> >>application is running.
> >
> >What is that value reporting exactly?
> 
> Netstat is reporting the ListenDrops and/or ListenOverflows  which
> map to LINUX_MIB_LISTENDROPS and LINUX_MIB_LISTENOVERFLOWS.  Those
> get incremented in tcp_v4_syn_recv_sock() (and its v6 version etc)
> 
>        if (sk_acceptq_is_full(sk))
>                 goto exit_overflow;
> 
> Will increment both overflows and drops, and drops will increment on
> its own in some additional cases.
> 
> >Because we are using syncookies, and AFAIK with that enabled, all
> >SYNs are being replied, and what the listen backlog is really
> >limitting is the "completely established sockets waiting to be
> >accepted", according to listen(2). What I don't really know to be
> >honest, is what a "completely established socket" is, does it mean
> >that the SYN,ACK was sent, or the ACK was received back?
> 
> I have always thought it meant that the ACK of the SYN|ACK has been
> received.
> 
> SyncookiesSent SyncookiesRecv SyncookiesFailed also appear in
> /proc/net/netstat and presumably in netstat -s output.

Thanks for the info. I'm definitely dropping SYNs and sending cookies,
around 50/s. Is there any way to tell how many connections are queued in
a particular socket?

> >Also, from the client side, when is the connect(2) call done? When the
> >SYN,ACK is received?
> 
> That would be my assumption.

Then if syncookies are enabled, the time spent in connect() shouldn't be
bigger than 3 seconds even if SYNs are being "dropped" by listen, right?
(and I'm saying "dropped" because I assume if syncookies are enabled,
SYN,ACK replies are sent anyway, with a cookie, but they are not stored
in the queue/hash table).

> In a previous message:
> 
> >What I'm seeing are clients taking either useconds to connect, or 3
> >seconds, which suggest SYNs are getting lost, but the network doesn't
> >seem to be the problem. I'm still investigating this, so unfortunately
> >I'm not really sure.
> 
> I recently ran into something like that, which turned-out to be an
> issue with nf_conntrack and its table filling.

Doing a quick research about it, I found that when that happens I should
get a message about it in dmesg (like "kernel: nf_conntrack: table full,
dropping packet.") but I'm not getting any, so I guess that's not a
problem.

Thanks!

-- 
Leandro Lucarella
sociomantic labs GmbH
http://www.sociomantic.com