Posted this and the one that follows about 2.5 hours ago but they never showed
up. Must be news server trouble. Anyway...
> >That said, it *usually* does imply a bug somewhere, since there are few
> >services that operate in this mode.
> CLOSE_WAIT is to TCP sockets as <defunct> is to processes: they're part of
> the normal scheme of things, and there's nothing that automatically cleans
> them up, but if a process leaves lots of them around, it probably indicates
> a bug in the process. And in both cases, killing the process that spawned
> them will cause them to go away.
Well, on Linux 2.2 at least, I've seen sockets stuck in CLOSE_WAIT with data in
the SendQ hang around indefinitely after the associated process is killed,
thereby preventing the service in question from being restarted by* onto
the local port number. So killing the process isn't always sufficient to get
rid of them. I don't recall seeing this on Unix hosts, but I wouldn't be at all
Jefferson Ogata : Internetworker, Antibozo