Re: [Exim] Is it just me, or can't exim count? :)

Startseite
Nachricht löschen
Nachricht beantworten
Autor: Chris Knipe
Datum:  
To: exim-users
Betreff: Re: [Exim] Is it just me, or can't exim count? :)
> > root@netsphere:~# sockstat |grep exim
> > exim     exim-4.1 15156    0 tcp4   192.168.1.1:3851

66.35.250.206:113
> > exim     exim-4.1 15156    1 tcp4   192.168.1.1:25
> > 66.35.250.206:53896
> > exim     exim-4.1 15156    2 tcp4   192.168.1.1:25
> > 66.35.250.206:53896
> > exim     exim-4.1 99992    0 tcp4   192.168.1.1:25        *:*
> > root@netsphere:~# exiwhat
> >  15156 handling incoming connection from [66.35.250.206]
> >  99992 daemon: -q15m, listening for SMTP

> >
> > Nopes :) Once again, three connections, exiwhat only states one

incoming
> > connection...
>
> There is only one exim receiving process, 15156, so there can only be
> one incoming connection. In fact that is what we see in
>
> > exim     exim-4.1 15156    1 tcp4   192.168.1.1:25 66.35.250.206:53896

>
> I don't understand the second, almost identical line:
>
> > exim     exim-4.1 15156    2 tcp4   192.168.1.1:25 66.35.250.206:53896

>
> ... but note that it has the same IP addresses and ports. Therefore, it
> must represent the same connection as the previous line. What is the
> meaning of the "1" and "2" column that is different between the two
> lines?


USER     COMMAND    PID   FD PROTO  LOCAL ADDRESS         FOREIGN ADDRESS
exim     exim-4.1 22555    1 tcp4   192.168.1.1:25
195.92.249.251:57206
exim     exim-4.1 22555    2 tcp4   192.168.1.1:25
195.92.249.251:57206


The 1 and 2 would have been the file descriptors... And funny enough, once
again the same scenario - duplicate connection...


> The first output line,
>
> > exim     exim-4.1 15156    0 tcp4   192.168.1.1:3851

66.35.250.206:113
>
> is an *outgoing* connection to port 113 on the remote host. Port 113 is
> the ident port. You caught this process while it is doing the ident
> thing.


Yup, my bad - I just grabed the output from the grep and pasted...

> So I cannot see any inconsistency in that output in terms of
> connections, though the repeated line is odd (but I'm not familiar with
> sockstat).


Erm, it still doesn't count the current connections right in the log files?
John Jetmore posted a reply earlier with basically the same scenario - he's
connection count is just alot more than mine...

--
me