Re: Too many open files Re: Patch 9.4.2->9.4.2-P1 breaking tcp-responder?

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 05:26:24PM -0500, jbratton@rackspace.com wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Jacob <jacob@internet24.de>:
>> That didn't seem to do it for us, the bind instance in question ran
>> for about 38 hours and then it refused to accept tcp connections again.
> Did it actually start building up a lot of TCP connections in SYN_RECV  
> state again, or did it just crash?

It didn't crash (it never did that for us yet), so it probably
was the SYN_RECV situation, but I wasn't around myself for this particular

> You can fix that with ulimit.  Check out ulimit -n to see how many open 
> files you currently allow, and try increasing it.  I keep it set to 16384 
> on my busier caches without any issues.  Note that setting the limit with 
> ulimit won't be persistent, you will want to change  

Already did that. I simply put it into the startup scripts.
And it looks like the upcoming fixes list seems to have several
entries that could be related to this problem:


Question: Your initial response regarding not having any problems with
a TCP queue size set to 1000, did you already have the increase in the
open file limit in place when you tried this. Or rather, did you
need to increase both the tcp queue size and the open file limit to get
to stable situation?

7/27/2008 10:43:38 PM
comp.protocols.dns.bind 16245 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

0 Replies

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 6


Similar Artilces:

Patch 9.4.2->9.4.2-P1 breaking tcp-responder?
Hello list, We're having problems with the -P1 version, some time after starting the server (could be minutes or hours), the tcp request handler seems to get stuck, and all (or almost all) new requests get stuck in the SYN_RECV tcp stat. We haven't found out what exactly triggers this yet, could be load, could be specific types of queries. This seems to be the same problem as described in the following post by Jason Bratton: http://marc.info/?l=bind-users&m=121628960603391&w=2 The main difference should be that we're running the version of bind that comes...

RE: Re: Migration from BIND 4.9 to 9.2 or Microsoft DNS
Hi Sorry for the misunderstanding I was not looking for support, I was just asking from people, who have been in the same situation that I am in now What influenced their decision to choose what ever they chose to go with -----Original Message----- From: bind-users-bounce@isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce@isc.org] On Behalf Of phn@icke-reklam.ipsec.nu Sent: 11 October 2004 21:21 To: comp-protocols-dns-bind@isc.org Subject: Re: Migration from BIND 4.9 to 9.2 or Microsoft DNS Mokwena Motseto <MotsetM@sapo.co.za> wrote: > Hi > We are currently running BIND 4...

Re: Migration from BIND 4.9 to 9.2 or Microsoft DNS #2
Mokwena Motseto <MotsetM@sapo.co.za> wrote: >> Do you know of any problems I might encounter if I migrate to Microsoft >> DNS I don't what version it is, or if it has versions at all phn@icke-reklam.ipsec.nu replied: > You won't get support from this forum :-) Sorry to disappoint Peter, but there have been discussions of the interaction between MS W2k (or W2k+3) DNS Server and BIND in the on this list (and on its now-defunct sister list bind9-users@isc.org). Check the list archives. Discussions of BIND interoperability with other DNS software is n...

Re: Can I have a HPUX bind 4.9.7 slaved to a Solaris bind 9.2.2 master ?
>>>>> "Terry" == Terry Pike <terry.j.pike@gsk.com> writes: Terry> I have a HPUX bind 4.9.7 master server that I want to Terry> convert to a slave server. I want to create a new master Terry> on Solaris bind 9.2.2. Terry> Question: will the V4.9.7 server accept zone transfers from Terry> V9.2.2 ?? Of course. Why shouldn't it? The zone transfer protocol hasn't changed. However BIND9 by default tries a more efficient data transfer scheme that long-dead stuff like BIND4 doesn't understand. This behaviour ...

RE: BIND 9.4.2-P1 and sockets? #2
Well, my question was exactly on this matter: named is quite capable of matching multiple queries and only asking one question. I didn't think that recursive clients was incremented even when matching multiple queries and recursing only once. Thank you Mark. Regards, Emmanuel -----Message d'origine----- De�: Mark_Andrews@isc.org [mailto:Mark_Andrews@isc.org] Envoy�: jeudi 10 juillet 2008 16:52 ��: TIRADO Emmanuel Ext DOE/DEPFS Cc�: bind-users@isc.org Objet�: Re: BIND 9.4.2-P1 and sockets? > Hello, > > I'm little confused about th...

Re: Migration from BIND 4.9 to 9.2 or Microsoft DNS
bind-users-bounce@isc.org wrote on 10/11/2004 11:27:26 AM: [clip...] > > Do you know of any problems I might encounter if I migrate to BIND ver 9 > (latest) You should not have any problems. However, you should read all the docs that come with BIND 9. If you start with the "README" file you will find this statement: "If you are upgrading from BIND 8, please read the migration notes in doc/misc/migration. If you are upgrading from BIND 4, read doc/misc/migration-4to9." I highly recommend going through all of the docs before m...

Re: upgrading from 9.2.4 to 9.3.2-p2 #2
> Have an existing pair of ISC BIND 9.2.2 that I'd like to upgrade to 9.4.2. A > ny known issues? Can I upgrade my primary and still be able to send updates > to my 9.2.2 slave? > > TIA for any suggestions about potential issues. All versions of BIND interoperate with all other versions of BIND. Major changes: check-names has been re-implemented. allow-recursion has a new default. allow-query-cache now exists. Run your zones through named-checkzone or named-checkconf -z. Run you config through named-checkconf. Read README and CHANGES....

Re: configure/Makefile issue 9.3.4-P1 / 9.4.2
> Both: > make/rules.in > BUILD_LDFAGS = @BUILD_LDFAGS@ > should be LDFLAGS, never gets substituted as a result > Fixed in next rc. --- 9.3.5rc2 released --- 2338. [bug] check_ds() could be called with a non DS rdataset. [RT #17598] 2337. [bug] BUILD_LDFLAGS was not being correctly set. [RT #17614] --- 9.3.5rc1 released --- -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org ...

Re: Migration from BIND 4.9 to 9.2 or Microsoft DNS #3
"Mokwena Motseto" <MotsetM@sapo.co.za> wrote: >Hi > >Sorry for the misunderstanding > >I was not looking for support, I was just asking from people, who have >been in the same situation that I am in now > >What influenced their decision to choose what ever they chose to go >with My feeling from reading postings on this list for a number of years is that most people who are currently using BIND will stick with BIND. In general, there is a mistrust of MS code. There were interoperability problems with BIND and MS W2k DNS a few years ag...

Re: BIND 9.4.2-P2-W1 stops responding #2
> On Sep 6, 8:16 am, "Jukka Pakkanen" <jukka.pakka...@qnet.fi> wrote: > > Would have been very nice to know immediately when you made the decision of > > dropping Windows 2000 users from your supportes list... we have been > > patiently waiting for the fixes to the completely broken windows code for > > weeks, since it was supposed to come "very soon" and "in days"... and now w > e > > get a lakonic statement "W2K is no longer supported"... :( > > > > In a couple of weeks the ISC BIND has go...

Re: BIND 9.4.2-P2-W1 stops responding #4
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Mark Andrews wrote: > > >> Yeah aint that a nice kickinthepants... Sorry no new bind for yous if > >> you arent made of moneybags and running the latest windoze! Guess we > >> will start looking at djbdns, it didnt have the bugs in the first > >> place. Or switch back to windozedns.. oh no.. did I say that?? > > > >> disgruntled_used_to_be_bind_user > > > > Firstly I don't call XP or W2K3 the lastest versions by any > > measure. There were some fixes that we would have liked ...

Re: BIND 9.4.x vs 9.6.x
In message <200901260800.n0Q80lkH017744@mail49.nsc.no>, Jan Arild =?iso-8859-1? Q?Lindstr=F8m?= writes: > > Hi, > > just to clarify that Solaris really is different from Linux: > > ns12(root) / 503# su - named > Sun Microsystems Inc. SunOS 5.10 Generic January 2005 > -bash-3.00$ ls -la /var/run/named/ > total 80 > drwxr-s--- 4 named named 307 Jan 26 08:22 . > drwxr-xr-x 7 root sys 1285 Jan 26 00:52 .. > -rw-r--r-- 1 named named 6 Jan...

Re: BIND 8.2.7 master ixfr to 9.2.2 slave #4
At 1:59 PM -0400 2005-05-04, Mike Mitchell wrote: > About once a day I have a BIND 9.2.2 slave truncate a zone after an IXFR > from a BIND 8 master. The packet trace shows the master sending an IXFR > response containing only two SOA records. Don't use IXFR with BIND-8. The code changed multiple times, and was always not-quite-there. Use AXFR, or some other means to get the information transmitted. Or upgrade to BIND-9, where IXFR was finally made to work right. -- Brad Knowles, <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org> "Those who would give up essential ...

Re: wxGTK 2.4.2, SuSE 9.2, gcc 3.3.4: endless loop in wxSafeYield
Hi Kovesdi, I'm using wxSafeYield(this, true); defined in a public method that I call checkPending that is part of the ProgramFrame : public wxFrame class. It appears to work correctly. However this may not help you as you're in a Linux OS. I had problems with it until I used the this and true parameters. Al Reaud Proprietor, Happy Cat Technologies alreaud@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/alreaud/ --- Kovesdi Gyorgy <gyorgy.kovesdi@siemens.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to set the hourglass cursor for a long period of > calculating, and ...

RE: [wx 2.4.2, WinXP SP 1, Dev-Cpp bundle, gcc 3.2, MySQ L 4.0.20a-nt ] wxDbTable::Update()-ing PK field ?
> I have a table with single smallint PRIMARY KEY field, but it > is not AUTO_INCREMENT. wxDbTable::Update() works if any other > field has been changed. If PRIMARY KEY field has been > changed, nothing happens. The samples\db app has always allowed the primary key (a string field) to be modified. Do you maybe have a foreign key setup referencing this column also? Could you capture the SQL statement that the class is creating, and then what the native error text is that is being returned, and post that in a reply? Maybe the statement itself is being crea...

Re: upgrading from 9.2.4 to 9.3.2-p2
> Unfortunately, I'm bound by Lucent DNS and QIP. 9.3.2-p2 is the most > current release for the version of QIP we run. 9.4.x is only supported > in newer versions of the QIP application and we're many months away from > upgrading that. You should be able to use the latest in 9.3.x. 9.3.2-p2 is way past its use by date. > Thomas Horn > thomas.horn@fmr.com > Security & Network Directory Services > Fidelity Investments - FTG Operations > Work: 919.458.3588 > Cell: 919.208.8886 > > > -----Original Message----- > Fr...

Migration from BIND 4.9 to 9.2 or Microsoft DNS #2
Hi We are currently running BIND 4.9 and we are under pressure to migrate at least to version 8 or 9 But there is a possibility of moving to a microsoft DNS on windows 2003 Our ISP's who host secondary zones for our domains are running BIND ver 9 What I want you guys to help me out with is the following Do you know of any problems I might encounter if I migrate to BIND ver 9 (latest) Do you know of any problems I might encounter if I migrate to Microsoft DNS I don't what version it is, or if it has versions at all Mokwena Motseto ...

Re: Performance of Bind 9.2.3 vs BIND 4.8.3 #2
>>>>> "nishant" == nishant <nishant80@gmail.com> writes: nishant> But still i need to show that 'performance' wise BIND 9 nishant> is better than BIND 4. My previous posting did that. nishant> Can u please help me in deciding what kind of tests nishant> should i really be doing to show that BIND 9 'performs' nishant> better (or much better, as you say) than BIND 4? Look, stop wasting your time on this pointless make-work exercise. BIND4 is DEAD. Nobody should be running it. Consult the list arch...

Re: Number of CPUs detected by Bind 9.4.2 on 4 CPU system runningRedHat es 4.
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 05:57:01PM +0100, Lars Hecking wrote: > > Adam Tkac writes: > > [...] > > > After quick look into bind and glibc code /proc has to be mounted. > > > named calls sysconf(3) function and internal glibc implementation > > > looks like this: > > [...] > > > > Not that I have looked at the code, but maybe bind should grab this info > > before dropping privileges and going to jail ... > > > > Yes, this will be the best long term solution. I'm going to prepare > simple p...

Re: BIND 9.4.2 on Solaris 8 #2
> >> Greetings, > >> > >> Newly compiled BIND 9.4.2 on Solaris 8 kicks errors like below, Although > >> named *appears* to be listening and functioning fine. > >> > >> Anyone have ideas what would cause the below errors? > > > > lib/isc/unix/entropy.c > > /* > > * Solaris 2.5.1 does not have support for sockets (S_IFSOCK), > > * but it does return type S_IFIFO (the OS believes that > > * the socket is a fifo). This may be an issue if we tell > > *...

Re: bind 9(.2.4) on solaris 10 #2
> I wish it were that simple for me. Unfortunately I have corporate > requirements and restrictions to work with and one of them happens to be > to have IPv6 disabled everywhere. =P So short sighted ... One could argue that 6to4 is only IPv4 :-) > Speaking of which, there appears to be a named.conf directive called > "listen-on-v6". Would the "listen-on" version imply IPv4 only? If so, > that would be an acceptable workaround. > > -Alex No. Named will make queries over IPv6 even if it won't accept them. > Mark...

Re: Initial Lookup Slowness BIND 9.2.4 #2
Upgrade: 1773. [bug] Fast retry on host / net unreachable. [RT #13153] In message <20522.>, "David Porsc he'" writes: > All, > > I have installed a caching only instance of BIND (9.2.4) on a CentOS > machine on my internal network. I have noticed that initial DNS requests > against the server take a rather large amount of time (usually around 7 > seconds). I have done some basic troubleshooting and I am coming up at a > loss. I think my ISP might be doing something "funny&q...

Re: Trouble with key option (bind 9.2.4) #2
> Mark Andrews schrieb: > > [snip] > > > And you included the file /etc/named.keys where in named.conf? > > In the global options section. Well there is your problem. Keys definitions are not supposed to be inside the options block. > -- > Olaf Martens Linux User #246244 http://counter.li.org/ > Hugo-Luther-Str. 8 E-Mail: olafmartens@arcor.de > 38118 Braunschweig Fon: +49-531-314834 > "Who the heck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?" > > -- Mark Andrews,...

Re: bind-9.2.4-16.EL4 problem #2
> Well, Thank you > But why is my bind behaving like this, i thought it might be caused by > the firewall DNS inspection and i removed it from the PIX but still the > same problem happens, i defined the edns packet size to be 512 and > still no luck??!! > when i restart the named everything resolves fine for a while and then > it returns to the same behavior of resolving most internet but some are > not resolving, > also when performing nslookup it doesn't give me timedout as if i was > denied querying it gives me server failed!! > > i wo...

Web resources about - Re: Too many open files Re: Patch 9.4.2->9.4.2-P1 breaking tcp-responder? - comp.protocols.dns.bind

Resources last updated: 2/15/2016 8:59:53 AM