Martin Pelik??n [[email protected]] wrote: > 2010/9/10, Andy Bradford > <[email protected]>: > > Why would you need 65k UDP for DNS? Almost all UDP based DNS responses > > are under 512 bytes, those that are larger are required to set the > > truncated bit and the client restart the query using TCP. > > We have probably too many wild users because the logs were flooded by > "named: not enough free resources" from connect() failing with > ENOBUFS. DNS traffic is altq'd in high priority lowdelay queue. Any > more clever solution? >
Stop using ALTQ on your DNS server, perhaps? That may be what is causing the back-pressure that you're seeing. Look at unbound, which is going to replace named anyways?
