You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I've noticed that when an attack completes, many ports remain in the "established" or "time wait" states for some time afterward.
Should I be waiting for these ports to become available again between attacks? I know that I don't have to, but I'm worried that the number of ports in use at the start of an attack will affect the benchmark for the attack.
If so, what is the appropriate way to accomplish this? I've written the following code, but my program eventually hits Postgres on the local machine, which subsequently keeps ports open. That makes this approach untenable unless I hard-code initialPortsInUse to the number of ports Postgres seems to subsequently keep open. I'd rather have Vegeta wait for all the ports it knowns it opened to free.
Question
I've noticed that when an attack completes, many ports remain in the "established" or "time wait" states for some time afterward.
Should I be waiting for these ports to become available again between attacks? I know that I don't have to, but I'm worried that the number of ports in use at the start of an attack will affect the benchmark for the attack.
If so, what is the appropriate way to accomplish this? I've written the following code, but my program eventually hits Postgres on the local machine, which subsequently keeps ports open. That makes this approach untenable unless I hard-code
initialPortsInUse
to the number of ports Postgres seems to subsequently keep open. I'd rather have Vegeta wait for all the ports it knowns it opened to free.Here's my attack:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: