Ok, so this is just a quick follow up.

Squid started dying too, checking the logs showed "not enough file 
descriptors".

After looking at both /etc/login.conf "openfiles-cur" and the sysctl 
kern.maxfiles limits which were set extremely high to begin with.... 
turns out that the:

ulimit -n

was only showing as 64.

Changing that over to a value of 10000 (overkill but better safe then 
sorry), Dansguardian managed to start and now both DG and Squid seem to 
be online and stable!

I wonder if it has something to do with the:

openfiles parameter in /etc/login.conf?


A response by Philip suggests this:

http://openbsd.7691.n7.nabble.com/setting-resource-limits-login-conf-and-ulimit-td223656.html


Just a quick observation, not sure if by design or other but ulimit 
doesn't seem to have a man page?

man ulimit
man: no entry for ulimit in the manual.

man ulimit
man: no entry for ulimit in the manual.

Though I did find a copy here:

http://ss64.com/bash/ulimit.html

:-)


So thanks Philip, looks like you saved my day twice!


Regards,


Kaya

On 09/17/2014 03:55 AM, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Kaya Saman <kayasa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what happened but after updating OpenBSD today, then
>> updating the installed packages Dansguardian seems to not be working.....
> ...
>> The only error in the logs that I can see is:
>>
>> dansguardian[11832]: Error polling child process sockets: Invalid argument
>> dansguardian[11832]: Error polling child process sockets: Invalid argument
> So the error means that poll() is being passed an nfds argument too
> large, larger than the process could have open as fds.  It looks like
> the code, for some reason I cannot understand, passes poll() a pollfd
> structure for each child process...with fd=-1, so that it will be
> ignored.  Uh, why?  Why is it passing pollfd structures to the kernel
> that it *wants* the kernel to ignore?  It seems that the code could
> simply skip over allocating and filling in those pollfd structures and
> have the exact same effect.
>
> As for what changed, well, something changed the number of child
> processes you're experiencing (load?), or the process fd limit
> (RLIMIT_NOFILE) for dansguardian changed.
>
>
> Philip Guenther

Reply via email to