My apologies - that was silly of me. The servers in question are running a mix of BIND versions .. 9.2.3, 9.2.4, 9.3.2, 9.3.4, 9.4.1, 9.4.2-p2, the majority are 9.3.4 and 9.4.2-P2
Cheers. On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:32 PM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email protected]> wrote: > At Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:14:27 -0500, > Todd <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We ran into an issue this morning with some caching DNS servers. One >> of the zones we heavily rely on was having DNS issues, which appears >> to have been causing very slow responses to us. The servers in >> question handle about 500queries/second. >> >> These particular servers are configured with "recursive-clients 5000", >> which we thought would be sufficient. However, before we even reached >> 5000, the server started boinking because of "socket: too many open >> file descriptors" errors in syslog. >> >> So, the question is, do we need a 1:1 mapping of fle descriptors to >> max queries, + overhead for named? From reading, I see that a socket >> uses a file descriptor, so my assumption is yes, but I wanted to check >> with Those Who Are Wiser Than I before I write a change ticket to get >> these things fixed. >> >> If I do need to allow more file descriptors, what is the best method >> to ensure that the named process has an appropriate number? > > Before answering the questions: which version of BIND (you didn't even > say it was a BIND, but I guess it is for the obvious reason:-) are you > using? > > --- > JINMEI, Tatuya > Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. > _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
