On 06/02/10 01:31, Techi wrote:
but, my question is still not answered.
Why on earth such huge defference in the number of connections on the firewall
with the max-cache-size on and off? I still don't get it.
Imagine the cache as a bucket. With a large bucket the chances of the
answer that any
On Wed 02 of Jun 2010 00:45:42 you wrote:
> One obvious solution to keeping the firewall guys happy would just be
> to make them not burn state entries for the nameserver at all
> Firewalls in front of nameservers cause an ungodly amount of issues
> for no real benefit...
I will transfer that
One obvious solution to keeping the firewall guys happy would just be
to make them not burn state entries for the nameserver at all
Firewalls in front of nameservers cause an ungodly amount of issues
for no real benefit...
Just sayin'...
W
On Jun 1, 2010, at 8:35 AM, Techi wrote:
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 03:52:56PM +0300, Techi wrote:
> On Tue 01 of Jun 2010 15:43:54 you wrote:
> > What version of BIND are you running? If you're getting FD limits, I'd
> > think it's an older version with a bug, and your problems might also be
> > alleviated by upgrading.
> Version: bind-9
On Tue 01 of Jun 2010 15:43:54 you wrote:
> What version of BIND are you running? If you're getting FD limits, I'd
> think it's an older version with a bug, and your problems might also be
> alleviated by upgrading.
Version: bind-9.3.6-4.P1.el5_4.2
I cannot upgrade. Company's policy is to use o
What version of BIND are you running? If you're getting FD limits, I'd think
it's an older version with a bug, and your problems might also be alleviated by
upgrading.
Todd.
-Original Message-
From: bind-users-bounces+tsnyder=rim@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+tsnyder=ri
6 matches
Mail list logo
