Here is some info from Microsoft that I reference often.



On 10/30/06, Dyck, Jonathan <Jonathan.Dyck at cognos.com> wrote:
>
> I'm also interested in this topic.  My "netstat -a" looked the same as
> yours last week David.
>
> Last week I ran into an issue where (what I think was..) some security
> scans on my network for TCP traffic tied up a certain number of ports on
> my W2k3 master and some NBU processes were unable to interact reliably.
> Four levels of support were unable to suitably explain the problem to
> me, and all we ended up doing was throwing in a TCP wait delay into the
> registry,  which "worked" with middling success.  The issue has since
> disappeared (mysteriously) - as I assume whatever activity that was
> happening over those couple of days has since stopped.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: veritas-bu-bounces at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> [mailto:veritas-bu-bounces at mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Clooney,
> David
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 5:44 AM
> To: veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: [Veritas-bu] CLOSE_WAIT
>
> Hi All
>
> Scenario :
>
> Master server Solaris 8
> Media server windows 2000
>
> Over the past weekend we encountered a whole bunch of 219's on jobs
> using a particular media server, a netstat on the media server provided
> the below snapshot. The CLOSE_WAIT entries seemed to hang around for
> ages, additionally hogging sockets. On the master server everything was
> plodding along as usual.
>
> Q1. can anyone explain why these sockets on the media server do not
> close fully and hang around for quite sometime ? If indeed the master
> server has not
>    finalised comms, what (on the master) would be keeping the socket
> open between the two.
>
> Q2. Does anyone know the default setting for the maximum number of
> simultaneous tcp connections on windows 2000?
>
> Q3. If I was to add the registry key to tcp parameters
> "TcpNumConnections" , what guidelines could I follow to determine the
> number of connections ?
>
> Q4. Not so long ago on the same windows media server I added the
> registry key to tcp parameters "TcpTimedWaitDelay" in order to clear
> TIME_WAIT more
>    quickly. Are there any known issues with windows 2000 and tcp
> connections that I'm not aware off ?
>
> Much appreciated
>
> David Clooney
>
>
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       media_server:795        ESTABLISHED
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       media_server:834        ESTABLISHED
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       media_server:868        CLOSE_WAIT
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       media_server:991        CLOSE_WAIT
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:551          CLOSE_WAIT
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:562          CLOSE_WAIT
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:591          CLOSE_WAIT
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:610          CLOSE_WAIT
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:645          CLOSE_WAIT
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:696          CLOSE_WAIT
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:768          CLOSE_WAIT
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:807          CLOSE_WAIT
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:829          CLOSE_WAIT
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:830          CLOSE_WAIT
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:867          CLOSE_WAIT
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:904          CLOSE_WAIT
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:919          ESTABLISHED
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:976          ESTABLISHED
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:982          CLOSE_WAIT
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:1008         ESTABLISHED
> TCP    media_server:bpcd       master_server:1023         ESTABLISHED
>
>
>
> Notice to recipient:
> The information in this internet e-mail and any attachments is
> confidential and may be privileged. It is intended solely for the
> addressee. If you are not the intended addressee please notify the
> sender immediately by telephone. If you are not the intended recipient,
> any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to
> be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
> When addressed to external clients any opinions or advice contained in
> this internet e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed
> in any applicable governing terms of business or client engagement
> letter issued by the pertinent Bank of America group entity.
>
> If this email originates from the U.K. please note that Bank of America,
> N.A., London Branch and Banc of America Securities Limited are
> authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
>     This message may contain privileged and/or confidential
> information.  If you have received this e-mail in error or are not the
> intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disseminate or distribute it; do
> not open any attachments, delete it immediately from your system and notify
> the sender promptly by e-mail that you have done so.  Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20061030/869a980a/attachment.html