On 09/17/2014 03:34 PM, Alexander Hall wrote:
On September 17, 2014 4:08:48 PM CEST, Kaya Saman <kayasa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, so this is just a quick follow up.
Squid started dying too, checking the logs showed "not enough file
descriptors".
After looking at both /etc/login.conf "openfiles-cur" and the sysctl
kern.maxfiles limits which were set extremely high to begin with....
turns out that the:
ulimit -n
was only showing as 64.
Changing that over to a value of 10000 (overkill but better safe then
For some definition of safe. The limits exists for a reason. ;-)
But sure, one size does not fit all.
sorry), Dansguardian managed to start and now both DG and Squid seem to
be online and stable!
I wonder if it has something to do with the:
openfiles parameter in /etc/login.conf?
A response by Philip suggests this:
http://openbsd.7691.n7.nabble.com/setting-resource-limits-login-conf-and-ulimit-td223656.html
Just a quick observation, not sure if by design or other but ulimit
doesn't seem to have a man page?
man ulimit
man: no entry for ulimit in the manual.
man ulimit
man: no entry for ulimit in the manual.
Though I did find a copy here:
http://ss64.com/bash/ulimit.html
Hint is in the url: "bash".
ulimit is a shell command, not a binary.
man $SHELL
/Alexander
Yep I see that now :-)
Next time will understand better!
:-)
So thanks Philip, looks like you saved my day twice!
Regards,
Kaya
On 09/17/2014 03:55 AM, Philip Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Kaya Saman <kayasa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I'm not sure what happened but after updating OpenBSD today, then
updating the installed packages Dansguardian seems to not be
working.....
...
The only error in the logs that I can see is:
dansguardian[11832]: Error polling child process sockets: Invalid
argument
dansguardian[11832]: Error polling child process sockets: Invalid
argument
So the error means that poll() is being passed an nfds argument too
large, larger than the process could have open as fds. It looks like
the code, for some reason I cannot understand, passes poll() a pollfd
structure for each child process...with fd=-1, so that it will be
ignored. Uh, why? Why is it passing pollfd structures to the kernel
that it *wants* the kernel to ignore? It seems that the code could
simply skip over allocating and filling in those pollfd structures
and
have the exact same effect.
As for what changed, well, something changed the number of child
processes you're experiencing (load?), or the process fd limit
(RLIMIT_NOFILE) for dansguardian changed.
Philip Guenther
