6 ms·
The problem with leaving connections open is that there's a limit on how many you can have on the server... I think the author has committed self-DoS :) https:
by kuroguro 5y ago
The problem with leaving connections open is that there's a limit on how many you can have on the server... I think the author has committed self-DoS :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slowloris_(computer_security) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slowloris_(computer_security)
- titaniczero 5y agoThe website is down now lol
- proyb2 5y agoIt should be ends with .offline
- sildur 5y agoAnd now you can't download that image.
- Rerarom 5y agoYeah it's like a breeder reactor, it makes its own fuel.
- tomxor 5y ago> The connection has timed out Now I really can't download the image
- purplecats 5y agoHe got you!
- kingcharles 5y agoIt's a win-win!
- ReactiveJelly 5y agoYep. Although with the right language, even on cheap hardware, that limit might be 1,000 or so.
- danachow 5y ago1000… pft.. just holding open a connection and sending on average a few bytes a second hardly costs anything and the memory requirements on eg Linux are minimal. You can easily do 100k or more with python and a few hundred megs of memory. Millions are doable with something a little less memory hungry or throwing more memory at it.
- turing_complete 5y agoMost programmers these days don't know what computers are capable of.
- davidmurdoch 5y agoif you aren't using 14 layers of abstraction you clearly aren't a real programmer /s
- noir_lord 5y agoIn fairness to them, a lot of programmers didn't come up the way (we presumably) did - if you started using computers/programming in the 80's and building computers in the 90's your worldview is going to be fundamentally different to someone who started in 2018. We came from a world where bytes mattered they come from a world where Gigabytes matter. In some ways caring about that stuff can be detrimental, at the back of my mind there is always that little niggle - you could do this in 1/10th the runtime/memory cost but it'll take twice as long to write and you'll be the only one who understands it. These days we don't optimise for the machine but instead for the human time and honestly, that's an acceptable trade off in many (but not all) cases. It can be frustrating when you remember how much of an upgrade getting a 286 was over what you had, that I now routinely throw thousands of those (in equivalence) at a problem inefficiently and still get it done in under a second.
- garaetjjte 5y agoIt would be possible to really close the connection but hack something to don't inform the client. (maybe just doing close() with SO_LINGER=0 and dropping outgoing RST in iptables would be enough)
- pipe01 5y agoThe client would eventually time out though, right?
- garaetjjte 5y agoYes, browsers probably have their own relatively short timeouts. (curiously enough, system TCP stack will never close idle connections by default, and even if application requests SO_KEEPALIVE, default intervals are usually in hours range)