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
rt after we shutdown server one we get error messages 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
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
er 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).
Before answering your other questions, can you please consider running the
latest 9.4.x version? Versi
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 descriptors
I tried to recompi
Re: Settings for File Descriptors
>
> On Mar 6 2009, Hayward, Bruce wrote:
>
> >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
On Mar 6 2009, Hayward, Bruce wrote:
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
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
So, before I'm allowed to even think about 9.4.3-P1, because of the
outage we experienced 9.4.2-P2, I need to run through a full test
suite/load testing in my lab. I am trying to find a succinct list of
the differences between 9.4.2-P2 and 9.4.3-P1 so I know where I should
be focusing my testing.
At Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:20:52 -0500,
Todd wrote:
> My apologies again, you are correct. I ran a named -v on the boxes,
> forgetting that we were directly calling bind in a non-path. We are
> in fact using 9.4.2-P2 on everything, patched to protect against
> kaminsky. We will look at an upgrade
I've done some more digging today - I have found a couple 9.2.4
servers that had the same file descriptors problem at the same time as
the 9.4.2-p2 servers.
Feb 24 13:28:48 dns01 named[29292]: socket: too many open file descriptors
Both servers named processes seem to have 2048 FD's
Feb 2009 15:10:36 -0500,
> Todd wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> Then are confused somehow. Among above, the only version that coul
At Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:10:36 -0500,
Todd wrote:
> 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
Then are confused somehow. Among above, the only version that could
cause the "too
>>>
>>> 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 de
d.
>>
>> 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" error
t 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
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 que
Are you sure the named you build was invoked? What if you directly
start the named executable by hand? For example, what's the result of
this?
(go down to the source directory where you built bind)
# cd bin/named
# ./named -g
# ./named -g -u bind -n 8 -t /var/lib/named -c /etc/bind/named.conf
-
On 4 dic, 19:43, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
>
>
> pollex writes:
> > On 4 dic, 10:59, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 --enable-threads=3Dyes
>
> > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > com>,
>
> > > pollex writes:
> > > >
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pollex writes:
> On 4 dic, 10:59, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 --enable-threads=3Dyes
> >
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> com>,
> >
> > pollex writes:
> > > On 3 dic, 21:08, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > In messa
On 4 dic, 10:59, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --enable-threads=yes
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> pollex writes:
> > On 3 dic, 21:08, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > com>,
>
> > > pollex writes:
> > > > Hi Jinmei I have f
--enable-threads=yes
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pollex writes:
> On 3 dic, 21:08, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> com>,
> >
> > pollex writes:
> > > Hi Jinmei I have followed your advice and I have installed and
> > > compiled the Bind 9.3
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
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/
> local/bind9.3.6 --enable-threads
> But now I have the foll
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-thread
On 20 nov, 17:09, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
On 20 nov, 17:09, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
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).
>
continue to get "socket: too many open
> > > file descriptors" messages.
> > The version of bind is "BIND 9.3.4-P1.1"
> > And the error appears when named open around of 1000 sockets:
> > lsof | grep named | wc -l
> > 968
>
> "9.3.4
At Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:03:23 -0800 (PST),
pollex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Running bind9 9.3.4-2etch3 on Debian etch 4.0(last stable version with
> > apt-get install bind9) and I continue to get "socket: too many open
> > file descriptors" messages.
> Th
On Nov 19, 2008, at 5:03 AM, pollex wrote:
The version of bind is "BIND 9.3.4-P1.1"
And the error appears when named open around of 1000 sockets:
lsof | grep named | wc -l
968
If I have to reinstall bind, there are any way to do it via apt-get?
Or the only way is compiling the binaries?
Thanks
re FDs as ours did.
>
> HTH -- Chris
>
> =A0
>
> - Original Message
> From: pollex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:04:55 AM
> Subject: socket: too many open file descriptors
>
> Hello,
> Running bind9 9.
TED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:04:55 AM
Subject: socket: too many open file descriptors
Hello,
Running bind9 9.3.4-2etch3 on Debian etch 4.0(last stable version with
apt-get install bind9) and I continue to get "socket: too many open
file descriptors" mess
At Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:04:55 -0800 (PST),
pollex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Running bind9 9.3.4-2etch3 on Debian etch 4.0(last stable version with
> apt-get install bind9) and I continue to get "socket: too many open
> file descriptors" messages.
This version numbe
Hello,
Running bind9 9.3.4-2etch3 on Debian etch 4.0(last stable version with
apt-get install bind9) and I continue to get "socket: too many open
file descriptors" messages.
my ulimit -a:
core file size (blocks, -c) 0
data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimite
35 matches
Mail list logo
