URGENT, PLEASE READ: 9.5.0-P1 now available

[Emery Rudolph]

Thanks for clearing that up for me Walter. There have been so many people
with the same error I mixed your name up with someone else.
As you may know, taking down a nameserver to implement these changes is not
a trivial matter for larger enterprises. I am very disappointed that the
response to your problem was that "the product was not fully matured yet and
if you need stability go with 9.4.2-P1". I still have yet to meet the person
who "doesn't" need stability in the DNS.

I have seen so many threads of problems with so many of the post-cache-bug
versions of BIND that I doubtful that any of them are safe to use. I know
that the ISC people had to rush these products out because of the cache
problem, so I don't fault them, but I have to wonder if the cure is worse
than the disease?

I don't mean to bitch about things, but I just don't have time to chase down
possible remedies that are unproven. I hope that a concrete cause can be
found, so that we can make concrete plans for addressing the issue. If it's
an actual sizing limitation - tell us. if it's a thread problem - tell us.
Just do the due diligence and get it right so we can nail the issue.

Emery,

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Walter Gould <gouldwp at auburn.edu> wrote:

> Emery Rudolph wrote:
>
>> Milan,
>> After getting more information I see that the 65535 limit I was seeing for
>> the FD_SETSIZE limit is strictly for 64-bit applications. I will try the
>> recommended path of setting the 32-bit value to 4096 and recompiling BIND.
>>
>> The one thing that bothers me is that Walter Gould (an earlier contributor
>> to this thread) is also running Solaris 9, has the exact same error and
>> tried the recommended modification and recompile only to wind up with
>> continued crashes. I will not make too strong a correlation, because there
>> are other variables such as system hardware that could be the cause.
>>
>>
>>
> Emery,
> Actually, I am running an older version of Red Hat Enterprise - not Solaris
> 9.   However, I have had problems with receiving the "Too man open files"
> error.  When this happens, the named daemon continues to run - but does not
> resolve names.  Also, I have recompiled named increasing the FD_SETSIZE to
> 4096.  Weird thing is after doing that, named ran for about a day before I
> received the "Too man open files" error and named stopped resolving.
> Walter
>
>