On 01. 02. 22 15:43, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
On 01/02/2022 15:33, Petr Špaček wrote:
Hi Petr,
As you correctly noticed, the log message "adjusted limit on open
files from 4096 to 1048576" already shows that BIND adjusted OS-level
file descriptor limit.
The only way out is what Tony wrote in a
On 01/02/2022 15:33, Petr Špaček wrote:
Hi Petr,
As you correctly noticed, the log message "adjusted limit on open files
from 4096 to 1048576" already shows that BIND adjusted OS-level file
descriptor limit.
The only way out is what Tony wrote in another thread: Add "-S "
parameter to bump
On 01. 02. 22 13:30, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
Hi Ondrej,
Do you recommend setting LimitNOFILE=1048576 in the systemd unit file
for BIND?
I'm not Ondrej, but let me try:
No, that would be redundant.
As you correctly noticed, the log message "adjusted limit on open files
from 4096 to 1048576" al
Hi Ondrej,
Do you recommend setting LimitNOFILE=1048576 in the systemd unit file
for BIND?
Regards,
Anand
On 28/01/2022 15:03, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
Hi Ondrej,
It is 1024. I see named logging this:
adjusted limit on open files from 4096 to 1048576
I thought there was no need to set Limit
s this log:
general: error: socket: file descriptor exceeds limit (46474/21000)
Hmm, (128+129)*88*2 == 45232, (2 == UDP + TCP) so the big number looks
plausible.
The 21000 limit comes from a hardcoded value for ISC_SOCKET_MAXSOCKETS.
You can adjust -U (number of listeners) on the command line
Anand Buddhdev wrote:
>
> The server has many IP addresses. In named.conf, there are 129 IPv6 addresses
> in the "listen-on-v6" option and 128 IPv4 addresses in the "listen-on" option.
> The server begins running, but then repeatedly emits this log:
>
> g
Hi Ondrej,
It is 1024. I see named logging this:
adjusted limit on open files from 4096 to 1048576
I thought there was no need to set LimitNOFILE=1048576 in the systemd
unit file. Am I mistaken?
Regards,
Anand
On 28/01/2022 14:47, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Hi Anand,
what is your open files limi
general: info: found 88 CPUs, using 88 worker threads
> general: info: using 88 UDP listeners per interface
> general: info: using up to 21000 sockets
> network: info: listening on IPv4 interface lo, 127.0.0.1#53
> ...
> network: info: listening on IPv6 interface lo, ::1#53
> ...
>
ning on IPv4 interface lo, 127.0.0.1#53
...
network: info: listening on IPv6 interface lo, ::1#53
...
general: info: sizing zone task pool based on 5486 zones
...
general: notice: command channel listening on 127.0.0.1#953
general: info: configuring command channel from '/etc/named/rndc.key&#x
On 6/19/15, 4:07 PM, "bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org on behalf of
/dev/rob0"
wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 02:55:23PM -0500, I wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:11:16PM +,
>>Mike Hoskins (michoski) wrote:
>snip
>> Note that connection tracking can be a problem upstream as well,
>>
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 02:55:23PM -0500, I wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:11:16PM +,
>Mike Hoskins (michoski) wrote:
snip
> Note that connection tracking can be a problem upstream as well,
> for the same reasons as described in the article. I would still
> turn off conntrack for UD
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:11:16PM +,
Mike Hoskins (michoski) wrote:
> On 6/18/15, 7:09 PM, "Stuart Browne"
> wrote:
>
> >Just wondering. You mention you're using RHEL6; are you also
> >getting messages in 'dmesg' about connection tracking tables being
> >full? You may need some 'NOTR
On 6/19/15, 1:16 PM, "bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org on behalf of Reindl
Harald" wrote:
>Am 19.06.2015 um 18:44 schrieb Mike Hoskins (michoski):
>> I suppose the only way to avoid any "intermediate" firewalls would be to
>> place everything you run on a LAN segment hanging directly off your
>>
Am 19.06.2015 um 18:44 schrieb Mike Hoskins (michoski):
I suppose the only way to avoid any "intermediate" firewalls would be to
place everything you run on a LAN segment hanging directly off your
router/Internet drop with host based firewalls
well, if the router is from Cisco and has NAt ena
On 6/19/15, 5:07 AM, "bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org on behalf of Matus
UHLAR - fantomas" wrote:
>>On 6/18/15, 7:09 PM, "Stuart Browne"
>>wrote:
>>>Just wondering. You mention you're using RHEL6; are you also getting
>>>messages in 'dmesg' about connection tracking tables being full? You
>>
On 6/18/15, 7:09 PM, "Stuart Browne"
wrote:
Just wondering. You mention you're using RHEL6; are you also getting
messages in 'dmesg' about connection tracking tables being full? You may
need some 'NOTRACK' rules in your iptables.
On 18.06.15 23:11, Mike Hoskins (michoski) wrote:
Just follow
Inline...
On 6/18/15, 9:22 AM, "Cathy Almond" wrote:
>On 18/06/2015 12:00, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On 17.06.15 22:39, Shawn Zhou wrote:
>>> BIND on my resolvers reaches the max open file limit and I am getting
>>> lots
>>> of SERVFAILs
>>> http://pastebin.com/SxRsHLff
>>
>>> After I i
On 6/18/15, 7:09 PM, "Stuart Browne"
wrote:
>Just wondering. You mention you're using RHEL6; are you also getting
>messages in 'dmesg' about connection tracking tables being full? You may
>need some 'NOTRACK' rules in your iptables.
Just following along, for the record... On our side, iptabl
ies from your system
and notify us immediately.
-Original Message-
From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hoskins (michoski)
Sent: Friday, 19 June 2015 2:28 AM
To: Matus UHLAR - fantomas; bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: file
Inline...responding to each of these including Kathy's soon (thanks to the
community for the responses). Following with interest as we've seen this
for awhile, though we are possibly a special case which I'll describe more
in another response.
On 6/18/15, 7:00 AM, "Matus UHLAR - fantomas" wrote
On 18/06/2015 12:00, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 17.06.15 22:39, Shawn Zhou wrote:
>> BIND on my resolvers reaches the max open file limit and I am getting
>> lots
>> of SERVFAILs
>> http://pastebin.com/SxRsHLff
>
>> After I increased the max-socks (-s 8192) to 8192, I no longer saw the
>>
On 17.06.15 22:39, Shawn Zhou wrote:
BIND on my resolvers reaches the max open file limit and I am getting lots
of SERVFAILs
http://pastebin.com/SxRsHLff
After I increased the max-socks (-s 8192) to 8192, I no longer saw the file
limit error from the log anymore; however, I am still many SERVF
Hello,
BIND on my resolvers reaches the max open file limit and I am getting lots of
SERVFAILs
http://pastebin.com/SxRsHLff
After I increased the max-socks (-s 8192) to 8192, I no longer saw the file
limit error from the log anymore; however, I am still many SERVFAILs.
Our resolvers were doing a
At Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:53:44 -0700,
Dale Kiefling wrote:
> We have a Bind 9.7.0-P1 instance that is throwing the following errors:
> 21-Apr-2010 16:59:00.173 general: error: socket: file descriptor exceeds
> limit
> (1024/1024)
The fact that the FD limit is 1024 suggests your named
and inittab.
>
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Dale Kiefling wrote:
>
>> We have a Bind 9.7.0-P1 instance that is throwing the following errors:
>> 21-Apr-2010 16:59:00.173 general: error: socket: file descriptor exceeds
>> limit
>> (1024/1024)
>> 21-Apr-2
t and inittab.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Dale Kiefling
wrote:
We have a Bind 9.7.0-P1 instance that is throwing the following
errors:
21-Apr-2010 16:59:00.173 general: error: socket: file descriptor
exceeds limit
(1024/1024)
21-Apr-2010 17:00:00.122 general: error: socket: file descr
error: socket: file descriptor exceeds
> limit
> (1024/1024)
> 21-Apr-2010 17:00:00.122 general: error: socket: file descriptor exceeds
> limit
> (1024/1024)
> 21-Apr-2010 17:00:00.123 general: error: socket: file descriptor exceeds
> limit
> (1024/1024)
>
> When we try
We have a Bind 9.7.0-P1 instance that is throwing the following errors:
21-Apr-2010 16:59:00.173 general: error: socket: file descriptor exceeds
limit
(1024/1024)
21-Apr-2010 17:00:00.122 general: error: socket: file descriptor exceeds
limit
(1024/1024)
21-Apr-2010 17:00:00.123 general: error
28 matches
Mail list logo
