HPE GreenLake Administration
- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - Linux
- >
- TCP RST problem
Operating System - Linux
1827853
Members
1483
Online
109969
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-01-2004 01:17 AM
07-01-2004 01:17 AM
TCP RST problem
Hello,
I hope my post fills in the appropriate forum.
I got a strange problem :
A HP DL380 G3 running RedHat ES 2.1 is hosting a weblogic app that reply to a POST request by a 302 redirect. As soon as the "302"
fragments are sent, the server emits a TCP RST. The client is then unable to do
its consecutive GET ordered by the redirect : it shows a "404".
Facts :
This behaviour is reproductible on vanilla lk 2.4.26, latest redhat EL kernel
and various Linux distros.
This behaviour is not reproductible with Windows NT/XP weblogic servers and
Tru64 servers.
This behaviour shows only when using Internet Explorer at the client side :
relyably with IE5, IE5.1, IE5.5 and less relyably with IE6. Mozilla browsers
don't ever trigger the RST. Latest IE Service Packs seem to solve the problem
too, but I don't have the leasure to force the upgrade on a *really* big client
park (+4000 PC).
Masking the Weblogic server behind a proxy or a LVS load-balancer mostly solve
the issue : RST get triggered less than 1 hit out of 50.
Droping the outgoing RST packets on the weblogic server fixes the problem 100%,
but may induce other problems.
Questions :
Does anyone have insights to share about how to solve the problem "cleanly" on
the server side, or simply an explanation of the phenomenon ?
What perturbations can I expect from filtering the outgoing RST on these
servers, given they will take hits from slow WAN clients ?
regards.
I hope my post fills in the appropriate forum.
I got a strange problem :
A HP DL380 G3 running RedHat ES 2.1 is hosting a weblogic app that reply to a POST request by a 302 redirect. As soon as the "302"
fragments are sent, the server emits a TCP RST. The client is then unable to do
its consecutive GET ordered by the redirect : it shows a "404".
Facts :
This behaviour is reproductible on vanilla lk 2.4.26, latest redhat EL kernel
and various Linux distros.
This behaviour is not reproductible with Windows NT/XP weblogic servers and
Tru64 servers.
This behaviour shows only when using Internet Explorer at the client side :
relyably with IE5, IE5.1, IE5.5 and less relyably with IE6. Mozilla browsers
don't ever trigger the RST. Latest IE Service Packs seem to solve the problem
too, but I don't have the leasure to force the upgrade on a *really* big client
park (+4000 PC).
Masking the Weblogic server behind a proxy or a LVS load-balancer mostly solve
the issue : RST get triggered less than 1 hit out of 50.
Droping the outgoing RST packets on the weblogic server fixes the problem 100%,
but may induce other problems.
Questions :
Does anyone have insights to share about how to solve the problem "cleanly" on
the server side, or simply an explanation of the phenomenon ?
What perturbations can I expect from filtering the outgoing RST on these
servers, given they will take hits from slow WAN clients ?
regards.
3 REPLIES 3
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-01-2004 04:05 PM
07-01-2004 04:05 PM
Re: TCP RST problem
It might help if you could post an exmaple packet trace.
If you filter RST's, then the remote systems will never know that the server has toasted the TCP connection. They will likely keep retransmitting their next request, the server TCP will keep emitting RSTs that you filter, and eventually the client TCP will retransmit timeout and raise an error to the client application.
In a phrase, don't do that.
Perhaps there is some bogus use of SO_LINGER, or the server side is thinking there are not persistent connections, calling close() and then another request arrives from the client - that would trigger a RST because the server application, by calling close(), has "told" TCP it expects no more data. A system call trace could show that and/or perhaps setting SO_LINGER badly.
If you filter RST's, then the remote systems will never know that the server has toasted the TCP connection. They will likely keep retransmitting their next request, the server TCP will keep emitting RSTs that you filter, and eventually the client TCP will retransmit timeout and raise an error to the client application.
In a phrase, don't do that.
Perhaps there is some bogus use of SO_LINGER, or the server side is thinking there are not persistent connections, calling close() and then another request arrives from the client - that would trigger a RST because the server application, by calling close(), has "told" TCP it expects no more data. A system call trace could show that and/or perhaps setting SO_LINGER badly.
there is no rest for the wicked yet the virtuous have no pillows
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-04-2004 08:10 PM
07-04-2004 08:10 PM
Re: TCP RST problem
Hi,
First of all, thanks for your answer to this tricky problem.
I uploaded a packet trace here http://dsit.free.fr/sniff.eth.bz2
( linux RHES server : 10.40.89.27 / nt4 client : 10.9.238.105 )
The problem occurs 2 times at the end of the log.
I will focus on debugging weblogic system calls this week.
First of all, thanks for your answer to this tricky problem.
I uploaded a packet trace here http://dsit.free.fr/sniff.eth.bz2
( linux RHES server : 10.40.89.27 / nt4 client : 10.9.238.105 )
The problem occurs 2 times at the end of the log.
I will focus on debugging weblogic system calls this week.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-06-2004 12:27 AM
07-06-2004 12:27 AM
Re: TCP RST problem
i took a look at the packet trace. it looks like before RSTing the connection, .27 sends out 4 acks for 7440236. it does this again with 7426897, then rsts the same way.
additionally, 7428806 is acked for 18 times, and most of these are ack,psh meaning "this is the next packet i want, and i'm out of things to say so dump everything out of your buffer into the stream"
i'm looking for duplicate acks elsewhere in the trace, but packet loss is the theory de jour.
additionally, 7428806 is acked for 18 times, and most of these are ack,psh meaning "this is the next packet i want, and i'm out of things to say so dump everything out of your buffer into the stream"
i'm looking for duplicate acks elsewhere in the trace, but packet loss is the theory de jour.
There have been Innumerable people who have helped me. Of course, I've managed to piss most of them off.
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
Company
Support
Events and news
Customer resources
© Copyright 2025 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP