Thanks for the feedback
How many sockets are open when you see this message? Normally the
socket() call shouldn't fail even if named uses many sockets
(it will fail anyway, but the failure mode is normally
different), so it's very odd to see the above message.
As Jeremy suggested we
on
the other server
- socket: too many open file descriptors
What is the other server? I assume you are getting this
error message with the old 9.4.2-P2 (and not on the 9.5.1-P1).
No i have the messages on both servers.
If ns1 goes down, we get the messages on ns2 and vice-versa.
How many
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Philippe Maechler wrote:
Hello Everybody
I'm running a bind 9.4.2-p2 and a 9.5.1-P1 both on a FreeBSD 6.x box as
caching servers.
let's call them ns1 and ns2 :P
short after we shutdown server one we get error messages on the other server
- socket: too many open file
Hello Jeremy
I'm running a bind 9.4.2-p2 and a 9.5.1-P1 both on a
FreeBSD 6.x box
as caching servers.
let's call them ns1 and ns2 :P
short after we shutdown server one we get error messages on
the other server
- socket: too many open file descriptors
What is the other
Hi
I am trying to understand file descriptors with bind in mind, and what
they should be set at in conjunction with the OS.
We are running 9.5.1 P1 on Solaris 10 (patched up), which is basically
all that is on each server.
Some questions:
1) Is there a recommended setting (number of FDs
Thanks much
Email to bruce.hayw...@mtsallstream.com
-Original Message-
From: Chris Thompson [mailto:c...@hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf
Of Chris Thompson
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 12:12 PM
To: Hayward, Bruce
Cc: Bind Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: Settings for File Descriptors
the too many open file descriptors problem is 9.4.2-P2 (this
doesn't mean you can safely use the others; they are vulnerable to the
so-called 'Kaminsky' caching poisoning attacks).
Regarding 9.4.2-P2, I'd strongly recommend to upgrade to 9.4.3-P1.
9.4.2-P2 has a fundamental performance problem due
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
.
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
,
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
many open file descriptors problem is 9.4.2-P2 (this
doesn't mean you can safely use the others; they are vulnerable to the
so-called 'Kaminsky' caching poisoning attacks).
Regarding 9.4.2-P2, I'd strongly recommend to upgrade to 9.4.3-P1.
9.4.2-P2 has a fundamental performance problem due
On 3 dic, 21:08, Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
pollex writes:
Hi Jinmei I have followed your advice and I have installed and
compiled the Bind 9.3.6 with the following command:
STD_CDEFINES=-ISC_SOCKET_FDSETSIZE=4096 ./configure --prefix=/usr/
At Tue, 2 Dec 2008 05:17:17 -0800 (PST),
pollex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jinmei I have followed your advice and I have installed and
compiled the Bind 9.3.6 with the following command:
STD_CDEFINES=-ISC_SOCKET_FDSETSIZE=4096 ./configure --prefix=/usr/
local/bind9.3.6 --enable-threads
But
At Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:30:00 -0800 (PST),
pollex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
9.3.4-P1.1 still seems to be a Debian specific version, but if this
is featurewise equivalent to 9.3.5-P1, you should at least upgrade to
9.3.5-P2 (and build it with a large value of ISC_SOCKET_MAXSOCKETS).
In fact,
14 matches
Mail list logo
