JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote: > At Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:24:31 -0500, > Walter Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> I guess we need more information to diagnose: >>> >>> - your detailed configuration (named.conf) >>> >>> >> Jinmei, >> >> See our attached named.conf file. >> > > I have a couple of suggestions: > > 1. you should specify a larger max-cache-size in named.conf. the > default size of 9.5.0 (32MB) is normally too conservative for a > busy server with many clients, reducing cache hit rate and making > the server busier, and possibly triggering subsequent performance > troubles as a result. > 2. #1 may be sufficient for you, but you may also want to raise > recursive-clients (whose default is 1000) to some reasonable large > value (e.g., 10000). I suspect the primary reason for the SERVFAIL > in your case is that the server hits the recursive-clients quota. > I suspect the server left warning messages like ""no more recursive > clients: ...". Raising recursive-clients will at least solve this > issue. > > --- > JINMEI, Tatuya > Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. > >
Here's the latest in my DNS horror story... I compiled 9.5.0-P2 with increased file descriptor settings (STD_CDEFINES="-DISC_SOCKET_FDSETSIZE=4096") and changed my named.conf to include max-cache-size 320M; and recursive-clients 10000; as suggested above. I started named and watched 'rndc status'. After a few minutes this was the result: # rndc status version: 9.5.0-P2 () number of zones: 365 debug level: 0 xfers running: 0 xfers deferred: 0 soa queries in progress: 0 query logging is ON recursive clients: 4980/9900/10000 tcp clients: 0/100 server is up and running When the recursive clients reached this level (or shortly before) queries started timing out... /var/log/messages showed the all to familiar too many open sockets error: Aug 11 10:34:17 dnsnew named[24266]: error: socket: too many open file descriptors Aug 11 10:34:31 dnsnew last message repeated 1876 times My questions are - 1. Do you think I should increase the FDSETSIZE to 10,000 or some other crazily high number? 2. Is that excessive? 3. What other adverse effects might this cause on my server? 4. Am I the only one having problems with a) ISC patched BIND packages and b) Red Hat patched BIND rpms? Thanks again, Walter
