On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Walter Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Gould wrote: >> JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote: >>> At Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:30:58 -0500, >>> Walter Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> Hmm...I'm curious about whether the server really consumes all the >>>>> possible 1024 sockets. Can you do some diagnosing, including: >>>>> >>>>> - checks whether the server constantly opens such a large number of >>>>> sockets, e.g., by using lsof >>>>> >>>> When I run lsof, the number of named UDP sockets opened is right at >>>> 995 to 999. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, then it really consumes all available sockets (file >>> descriptors, more accurately). Then the options I can think of are: >>> >>> - move to a beta (probably you don't want to do that) >>> - use a larger FD_SETSIZE like 4096 and recompile named with it, if >>> you OS allows such a dynamic change of FD_SETSIZE >>> >>> >>> >> Thanks - using a larger FD_SETSIZE seems to have worked. I set the >> #define __FD_SETSIZE in /usr/include/linux/posix_types.h to 4096, >> saved and recompiled named and now named is not crashing as it was >> before with the "too many open files" error. >> >> Thanks for your help, >> Walter >> > I guess I spoke too soon. The upgraded BIND 9.5.0-P1 that I compiled > yesterday (with the increased FD_SETSIZE) has crashed a few times > today. I received the same "Too many open files" error that I had been > seeing. Also, when I ran lsof, the number of named sockets or file > descriptors (?) was around 1000. Shouldn't it have been ok since I > increases the FD_SETSIZE to 4096? > > I tried restarting it, but shortly after, it crashed again. I am > wondering if running 9.5.0 is safe to run if we are not allowing > recursive lookups? When I run the dig @nameserver +short > porttest.dns-oarc.net TXT test against it, I receive: > dig @nameserver_ip +short porttest.dns-oarc.net TXT > z.y.x.w.v.u.t.s.r.q.p.o.n.m.l.k.j.i.h.g.f.e.d.c.b.a.pt.dns-oarc.net. > "nameserver_ip is GOOD: 26 queries in 1.9 seconds from 7 ports with std > dev 22442.25" > > Any thoughts? >
Did you edit /etc/security/limit.conf to allow for processes to have more open files? cat /proc/sys/fs/file-max to see wht the kernel thinks is the maximum number of processes, and for /etc/security/limits.conf: * - nofile 16384 http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/FAQ_80_1540.shtm -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
