× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Re: TCP Problem ?
  • From: Graham Chapman <gjchap@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:09:56 +0100

Thanks Rob, will have a look at those PTFs...

Another thing that I came across may have a bearing on the situation... on
the LAN that originally crashed we have two IBM Network Stations. The
timeout value is such that after a certain amount of inactivity, the
Network Stations loose their connection - we actually get a 'Fatal TELNET
error' message on the NS. When I looked at the connection status using
NETSTAT (just before TCP locked up) there were quite a lot (several screens
full) of connections for the NSs in a FIN_WAIT_2 state.         
How about this for a theory - the server initiates a disconnect after the
prescribed timeout by sending a FIN packet but is still waiting for the
client to repsond with it's own FIN packet. Presumably the TCP job keeps
this connection open until it gets an acknowledgment even though the NS may
have already died. The user then comes back after his/her break and
reconnects. This then opens a new session. Eventually there are so many
redundant connections that the TCP job can't cope and gives up. 
Since IPLing the system I have played about with the timeouts for TFTP and
so far I'm not getting any rogue FIN_WAIT_2 connections.
Does any of this sound reasonable or am I on a wild goose chase with this
one..?

Thanks for all suggestions...
Graham
 

Rob wrote :

At 09:21 AM 10/13/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I was having a similar problem on a 2619 token ring card.  An 
>IPL cleared it up, (since we have a couple spare 2619 cards laying 
>around we stuck one in for good measure).  Our CE talked to a few
> people.  He recommended the following PTF's for V3R7:  MF19376, 
>MF18168, MF18278, MF18428, MF19386, MF19621, MF18833, MF18665, 
>MF18580.  And yes, since some are delayed PTF's they earn the MF.
>  We have yet to IPL after setting the PTF's for delayed IPL.  
>I don't know if we had the thingy pointing to #F2FEXC like you did.
>
>
>



+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.