This is a discussion on Re: Issues with BIND 9.5.0-P2 - DNS ; I can deal with the "too many descriptors" error, because I am running BIND on 32-core boxes, which don't sweat the overhead. What I will not be able to handle are unserved queries. I am in a quandry because I ...
I can deal with the "too many descriptors" error, because I am running BIND
on 32-core boxes, which don't sweat the overhead. What I will not be able to
handle are unserved queries. I am in a quandry because I have one nameserver
that is not on the new hardware and it is ocassionally hitting 100% cpu
utilization, while the 32-core box, which is getting the same errors is only
hitting 6% cpu utilization.
As I said, I am planning to move the named service to off of the older
hardware, but I am in a quandry as to whether to move to 9.5.0-P1 or P2.
I think another problem will be - now that so many people have remediated
the immediate concern, they will not bother to move to P2, so the pool of
feedback is going to be much, much lower than the first go around.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:15 PM, JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H(B
> At Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:20:03 -0400,
> "Emery Rudolph"
> > This is exactly what I did not want to hear. I have been using the
> > version was hoping the "too many file descriptors" error was going to be
> > solved in the P2 distribution. Several ISC representatives promised as
> > I really would like to hear more feedback from P2 users on Solaris 10
> > moving forward.
> The difficult part is to provide a reasonable parameter for
> FD_SETSIZE/ ISC_SOCKET_FDSETSIZE, etc that work for everyone. That's
> why P2 doesn't try to change the system default by default. Even
> though I know even P2 should still have some scalability
> limitation, I suspect the primary reason for this particular report is
> the use of a small FD_SETSIZE value. I understand your concern, but
> I'd appreciate if you could still be a bit more patient to see what
> actually happened.
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.