Hi--
On Jan 29, 2010, at 8:51 AM, James Smallacombe wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:59 PM, James Smallacombe wrote:
>>> To follow up on this: Noticed the issue again this morning, which also was
>>> accompanied by latency so high that I could not connect (some pings got
>>> through at very h
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:51 AM, James Smallacombe wrote:
> Some updates that may confuse more than inform: I caught this while it was
> happening yesterday and was able to do a tcpdump. I saw a ton of UDP
> traffic outbound to one IP that turned out to be a colocated server in
> Chicago. I pu
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:59 PM, James Smallacombe wrote:
To follow up on this: Noticed the issue again this morning, which also was
accompanied by latency so high that I could not connect (some pings got
through at very high latency). I emailed the provider and they told me that
they had my
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:59 PM, James Smallacombe wrote:
> To follow up on this: Noticed the issue again this morning, which also was
> accompanied by latency so high that I could not connect (some pings got
> through at very high latency). I emailed the provider and they told me that
> they h
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Chuck Swiger wrote:
Hi--
On Jan 27, 2010, at 1:15 PM, James Smallacombe wrote:
Jan 26 21:50:32 host named[667]: client #57938: error sending
response: not enough free resources
Jan 26 21:50:32 host named[667]: client #59830: error sending
response: not enough free resour
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Jan 27, 2010, at 1:15 PM, James Smallacombe wrote:
Jan 26 21:50:32 host named[667]: client #57938: error
sending response: not enough free resources
indicates a problem sending UDP traffic; netstat -s output would be
Unfortunately, I did not ha
Hi--
On Jan 27, 2010, at 1:15 PM, James Smallacombe wrote:
>>> Jan 26 21:50:32 host named[667]: client #57938: error sending
>>> response: not enough free resources
>>> Jan 26 21:50:32 host named[667]: client #59830: error sending
>>> response: not enough free resources
>>
>> Were these client
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:24 AM, James Smallacombe wrote:
NOTE: Please reply off-list as well as I am not subscribed
OK. In return, please don't cross-post or multi-post the same question
to multiple FreeBSD lists.
I posted to the -isp list a couple o
On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:24 AM, James Smallacombe wrote:
> NOTE: Please reply off-list as well as I am not subscribed
OK. In return, please don't cross-post or multi-post the same question to
multiple FreeBSD lists.
> My server (7.2-STABLE) suffered at least two outages Sunday through yesterday
NOTE: Please reply off-list as well as I am not subscribed
My server (7.2-STABLE) suffered at least two outages Sunday through
yesterday after having been up since July (it is a rented dedicated server
with my FSBD install). The first time, I was able to log in via remotely,
saw a ton of spa
This is a dedicated server in a datacenter. I don't know the exact
switch specs but it's likely a
layer 2/3 managed switch. Probably a 1U catalyst.
you mean cisco?
there are actually most problematic switches. They don't properly
autonegotiate speed and full/half duplex with many network card
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Chris St Denis wrote:
Steve Bertrand wrote:
What type of device is em1 attached to? Is it a switch or a hub? Is it
possible to upgrade this? You should upgrade it to 100 (or 1000)
anyways. Does this device show any collisions?
This is a dedicated se
Not really. The point is that at the time the network card goes from up to
down, named spits out this error. If you log named to a different log file
then /var/log/messages, you will not see the relation. The reason for changing
this is one reason i always change syslog.conf to configure everyth
On Wednesday 03 June 2009 11:48:48 Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >> possible reasons
> >> - your firewall rules are the cause - check it.
> >> - your network card produce problems (REALLY i have that case)
> >> - the network/LAN named tries to sent UDP packet is somehow flooded.
> >
> > - the network c
possible reasons
- your firewall rules are the cause - check it.
- your network card produce problems (REALLY i have that case)
- the network/LAN named tries to sent UDP packet is somehow flooded.
- the network card changes from UP to DOWN state at the time of the error
See that a lot running
On Wednesday 03 June 2009 00:46:20 Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > named[69750]: client *ip removed*: error sending response: not
> > enough free resources
>
> quite misleading message, but the problem is that named want to send UDP
> packet and get's error from kernel.
>
>
> possible reasons
> - y
- the network/LAN named tries to sent UDP packet is somehow flooded.
Dns is probably fairly busy. It's the primary authorative dns for some
busy domains.
Is there a setting I can do to increase the limits of UDP packets to keep
it from
causing problems?
it would need t
Chris St Denis wrote:
> Steve Bertrand wrote:
>> What type of device is em1 attached to? Is it a switch or a hub? Is it
>> possible to upgrade this? You should upgrade it to 100 (or 1000)
>> anyways. Does this device show any collisions?
>>
> This is a dedicated server in a datacenter. I don't
- the network/LAN named tries to sent UDP packet is somehow flooded.
>>
>
> Dns is probably fairly busy. It's the primary authorative dns for
> some busy domains. Is there a setting I can do to increase the
> limits of UDP packets to keep it from causing problems?
>
If you extend the SOA
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Wojciech Puchar <
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
> lot of searching and have found others with similar problems, but no
>> solutions.
>>
>> named[69750]: client *ip removed*: error sending response: not
>> enough free resources
>> named[69750]: client *i
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Chris St Denis wrote:
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
possible reasons
- your firewall rules are the cause - check it.
Nope
eureka# ipfw list
- your network card produce problems (REALLY i have that case)
I have had this kind of error on mul
Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Steve Bertrand wrote:
>> Chris St Denis wrote:
>>> Wojciech Puchar wrote:
possible reasons
- your firewall rules are the cause - check it.
>>>Nope
>>>
>>>eureka# ipfw list
>>>
- your network card produce problems (REALLY i have that case)
>>>I have
Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Chris St Denis wrote:
>> Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>
>>> possible reasons
>>> - your firewall rules are the cause - check it.
>>Nope
>>
>>eureka# ipfw list
>>
>>> - your network card produce problems (REALLY i have that case)
>>I have had this kind of error on mult
Chris St Denis wrote:
> Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> possible reasons
>> - your firewall rules are the cause - check it.
>
>Nope
>
>eureka# ipfw list
>
>> - your network card produce problems (REALLY i have that case)
>
>I have had this kind of error on multiple servers over the years
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
lot of searching and have found others with similar problems, but no
solutions.
named[69750]: client *ip removed*: error sending response: not
enough free resources
named[69750]: client *ip removed*: error sending response: not
enough free resources
named[69750]
lot of searching and have found others with similar problems, but no
solutions.
named[69750]: client *ip removed*: error sending response: not
enough free resources
named[69750]: client *ip removed*: error sending response: not
enough free resources
named[69750]: client *ip removed*: e
I occasionally get named errors like these in my messages log. I've done
a lot of searching and have found others with similar problems, but no
solutions.
named[69750]: client *ip removed*: error sending response: not
enough free resources
named[69750]: client *ip removed*: error sendi
27 matches
Mail list logo
