Martin Pelik??n [martin.pelikan@gmail.com] wrote:
quoted text > 2010/9/10, Andy Bradford
> <amb-sendok-1286721307.iadidoklmfcciicncjjl@bradfords.org>:
> > Why would you need 65k UDP for DNS? Almost all UDP based DNS responses
> > are under 512 bytes, those that are larger are required to set the
> > truncated bit and the client restart the query using TCP.
>
> We have probably too many wild users because the logs were flooded by
> "named: not enough free resources" from connect() failing with
> ENOBUFS. DNS traffic is altq'd in high priority lowdelay queue. Any
> more clever solution?
>
Stop using ALTQ on your DNS server, perhaps? That may be what is causing the back-pressure that you're seeing.
Look at unbound, which is going to replace named anyways?
