Re: Operation cancelled Error
Dear ISC Team, Any input please, if is there anything from my side, kindly suggest me. Best Regards, Ben Dear ISC Team, Any suggestions please. Regards, Ben Hi, I tried all things to avoid current problem, but still same.Can we have information that why bind shows "Operation canceled" error in named.run file? and why bind does not take full power?when i do load test and same time watching rndc status command , it only tries to reach to 6000-6500 , and then goes back to 0.. Is there anything remaining in bind to configure or any issue in OS? I would request you to please suggest me to solve this. Regards, Be Hi Jeremy, Thanks for your kind response. On Thu, 24 May 2012, Ben wrote: version: 9.7.3-P3-RedHat-9.7.3-8.P3.el6_2.2 CPUs found: 8 worker threads: 8 number of zones: 19 debug level: 0 xfers running: 0 xfers deferred: 0 soa queries in progress: 0 query logging is ON recursive clients: 6400/29900/3 tcp clients: 0/100 server is up and running i constanly watch rndc status command , and at recuresive-clients tab , first values increases maximum up to 6000-6500, why it is not going to maximum which i define 3..? I don't know why it never reached the maximum. resperf should try to scale up to attempting 100,000 questions in its last second. (At 60th second I think; the final 40 seconds is waiting for responses.) It only tries 74038 during its total time, but I am not sure what is limiting it. Maybe your datafile is not unique enough? Maybe your source port range is not large enough? So then BIND 9 is matching existing requests and dropping. My source port range is cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range 102465535 I downloaded data file from resperf provider site. It depends a lot on the dataset. (I think I have seen around 17,000 queries with resperf and as low as 236 qps -- in this case it was depending on number of ACLs.) I do not using more acl for testing purpose. I don't know why you have the burst of "operation canceled". (The ISC_R_CANCELED can happen from different problems.) Please suggest us that what are reasons generate "operation canceled" error comes in named.run log file rndc status shows 8 worker process, when i checked by pgrep named , it shows only single instance.so does it need to show 8 instance or ? 8 worker threads is different than 8 processes. Currently we use bind as caching name server , so why rndc status shows number of zones 19..? The 19 zones are built-in zones. (See the ARM for the list.) By the way, to set some comparison maximum baseline you can try having resperf query the built-in zones. (It won't be real recursive work, but should show you some potential maximum qps.) Is there anything which we need to mind on OS kernel tuning parameters or from bind configuration side to achieve more QPS? By the way, what is highest benchmark for bind with no. of QPS in production servers? I would request you , if someone has getting high QPS with bind in production servers, kindly suggest your inputs. Jeremy C. Reed ISC Regards, Ben ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
rndc/controls block clarification needed?
Just spent a bit of time on missing a subtle rndc issue with Bind 9.9.1's
control block -- either I'm missing a better way to do this, or perhaps
bind should more appropriately issue a warning or fail to load instead of
silently accepted my bad control block.
I did RTFM, and until I'd spent a bunch of time playing with permutations,
I missed the subtle hints in the documentation. Perhaps I still am, in
which case, I welcome a cleaner way to do this.
Ultimately I believe the issues to be that 1) you can't use the same
control port (993) for more than one inet statement and 2) using more than
one key isn't going to work.
I initially wanted the following, but had issues with getting rndc status
to work from both places:
controls {
inet * port 953 allow { localhost; authorized-controllers; } keys {
rndc-key; masterkey; };
};
Also tried:
controls {
inet 127.0.0.1 allow { localhost; } keys { rndc-key; };
inet * port 953 allow { authorized-controllers; } keys { masterkey;
};
};
Ultimately it had to be set up as:
controls {
inet 127.0.0.1 port 953 allow { localhost; } keys { rndc-key; };
inet * port 9953 allow { authorized-controllers; } keys { masterkey;
};
};
Is there a cleaner way (that works!) to set this up? If not, could it be
made to work, or documentation/warnings be created to pound such ideas out
of my head in the future?
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Recommended value for max-cache-size for cache-only shared hosts..
We are planning to use cache-only BIND configuration on our hosts. These hosts are shared hosts i.e BIND runs along with other applications on these hosts. RAM size on these hosts = 8GB and hard- disk size=500GB. Question: what is the recommended configuration for 'max-cache-size' for optimum usage ? I was thinking to use the default value of 32M.. any suggestions.. thanks blr ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Recommended value for max-cache-size for cache-only shared hosts..
On 5/31/2012 1:51 PM, blrmaani wrote: > Question: > what is the recommended configuration for 'max-cache-size' for optimum > usage ? You should not restrict the size of the cache at all if you want the best performance. BIND will use as much memory as it needs in order to satisfy the requests of your users. -- If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Recommended value for max-cache-size for cache-only shared hosts..
Hmm, I don't quite think this is a good idea. BIND 9 (since 9.5) manages memory quite well, but it will happily consume all you have and go into swap. I'd set it high enough (on a dedicated machine) to use plenty of RAM, but low enough to not cause other OS components to swap out or BIND itself to swap. 75% or 85% range seems like a good starting point. --Michael On May 31, 2012, at 8:18 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 5/31/2012 1:51 PM, blrmaani wrote: > >> Question: >> what is the recommended configuration for 'max-cache-size' for optimum >> usage ? > > You should not restrict the size of the cache at all if you want the > best performance. BIND will use as much memory as it needs in order to > satisfy the requests of your users. > > > -- >If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough > ___ > Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe > from this list > > bind-users mailing list > bind-users@lists.isc.org > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Recommended value for max-cache-size for cache-only shared hosts..
Doug, hmmm.. 75%-85% seems too large because the host runs email application in addition to cache-and-forward-only BIND (for better local caching). So, I was wondering if there are any best/proven practice/recommendations for such shared application hosts ? The default value is 32MB. We have 8GB RAM. I don't know if its better to start with 1GB (1/8th of RAM)? thanks blr On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Michael Graff wrote: > Hmm, I don't quite think this is a good idea. BIND 9 (since 9.5) manages > memory quite well, but it will happily consume all you have and go into > swap. > > I'd set it high enough (on a dedicated machine) to use plenty of RAM, but > low enough to not cause other OS components to swap out or BIND itself to > swap. 75% or 85% range seems like a good starting point. > > --Michael > > On May 31, 2012, at 8:18 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > > On 5/31/2012 1:51 PM, blrmaani wrote: > > > >> Question: > >> what is the recommended configuration for 'max-cache-size' for optimum > >> usage ? > > > > You should not restrict the size of the cache at all if you want the > > best performance. BIND will use as much memory as it needs in order to > > satisfy the requests of your users. > > > > > > -- > >If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough > > ___ > > Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to > unsubscribe from this list > > > > bind-users mailing list > > bind-users@lists.isc.org > > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users > > ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Recommended value for max-cache-size for cache-only shared hosts..
It's really something you'll have to set, and monitor. I'd start with 1 GB, and see how close it gets to that in (say) a week. If it takes a few hours, you might need to go up to 2 or 4, and see how that works. It may never hit the memory limit. Also note that there is 10% to 20% overhead, so if you set a 1 GB limit, it's really more like a 1.1GB to 1.2GB limit. This is because the cache is not the only thing that uses memory, of course, and the limit is only for the cache. Remember that the cache is only used as a cache, and is not required for operation. Technically, BIND 9 could run with a very, very small cache. The default of 32 MB is actually a fairly new thing. It used to be unlimited, but that means BIND will hit some operating system imposed limit, and that is more painful than self-management. --Michael On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:26 AM, blr maani wrote: > Doug, > hmmm.. 75%-85% seems too large because the host runs email application in > addition to cache-and-forward-only BIND (for better local caching). So, I was > wondering if there are any best/proven practice/recommendations for such > shared application hosts ? > > The default value is 32MB. We have 8GB RAM. I don't know if its better to > start with 1GB (1/8th of RAM)? > > thanks > blr > > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Michael Graff wrote: > Hmm, I don't quite think this is a good idea. BIND 9 (since 9.5) manages > memory quite well, but it will happily consume all you have and go into swap. > > I'd set it high enough (on a dedicated machine) to use plenty of RAM, but low > enough to not cause other OS components to swap out or BIND itself to swap. > 75% or 85% range seems like a good starting point. > > --Michael > > On May 31, 2012, at 8:18 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > > On 5/31/2012 1:51 PM, blrmaani wrote: > > > >> Question: > >> what is the recommended configuration for 'max-cache-size' for optimum > >> usage ? > > > > You should not restrict the size of the cache at all if you want the > > best performance. BIND will use as much memory as it needs in order to > > satisfy the requests of your users. > > > > > > -- > >If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough > > ___ > > Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to > > unsubscribe from this list > > > > bind-users mailing list > > bind-users@lists.isc.org > > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users > > ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
