File descriptors

Todd canadaboy at
Tue Feb 24 20:10:36 UTC 2009

My apologies - that was silly of me.

The servers in question are running a mix of BIND versions .. 9.2.3,
9.2.4, 9.3.2, 9.3.4, 9.4.1, 9.4.2-p2, the majority are 9.3.4 and


On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:32 PM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
<Jinmei_Tatuya at> wrote:
> At Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:14:27 -0500,
> Todd <canadaboy at> wrote:
>> We ran into an issue this morning with some caching DNS servers.  One
>> of the zones we heavily rely on was having DNS issues, which appears
>> to have been causing very slow responses to us.  The servers in
>> question handle about 500queries/second.
>> These particular servers are configured with "recursive-clients 5000",
>> which we thought would be sufficient.  However, before we even reached
>> 5000, the server started boinking because of "socket: too many open
>> file descriptors" errors in syslog.
>> So, the question is, do we need a 1:1 mapping of fle descriptors to
>> max queries, + overhead for named?  From reading, I see that a socket
>> uses a file descriptor, so my assumption is yes, but I wanted to check
>> with Those Who Are Wiser Than I before I write a change ticket to get
>> these things fixed.
>> If I do need to allow more file descriptors, what is the best method
>> to ensure that the named process has an appropriate number?
> Before answering the questions: which version of BIND (you didn't even
> say it was a BIND, but I guess it is for the obvious reason:-) are you
> using?
> ---
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

More information about the bind-users mailing list