About TODO Blog RSS Old blog Projects Gallery Notes

Tue, 01 Jul 2008

Why is blocking sending considered harmful?

I frequently hear that whatever server you implement, it has to be non-blocking, since in case of parallel sending it allows to send multiple requests to fast servers, while not-sending data to slow server, since non-blocking socket will return EAGAIN.

This is only half-right solution: when we have to put given data to all servers, and can not free it until all servers replied with acknowledge, non-blocking mode can bring more damage than gain.

Mainly because it allows to eat all the memory for requests, which are still in the queue to be sent to slow server, and which was already sent to fast ones. In this case higher-level application (consider simple application which generates some data and writes it into the file in distributed filesystem, which writes file to several servers) will never block since transfer to fast servers completes quickly, and will provide more and more data, which will consume all RAM.

It is possible to deadlock system in this case, since to send some data to remote server we always have to allocate at least some data to put network headers into. With non-blocking solution we will consume all memory and kick itself into the coma.

/devel/networking :: Link / Comments (2)

Passive OS fingerprinting.

I've updated OSF modules to xtables, so you have to enable its support in kernel config and get recent iptables (I tested with 1.4.1.1, which is the latest release to date).

OSF allows you to match incoming packets by different sets of SYN-packet and determine, which remote system is on the remote end, so you can make decisions based on OS type and even version at some degreee.

Installation instruction, example and source code can be found on homepage.

I've also sent it to netfilter-devel@ and netdev@ maillists, since my previous mails never appeared there likely because of spam filters.

/devel/networking :: Link / Comments (0)