Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:39:09 -0700 From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org> To: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, Thomas Vogt <freebsdlists@bsdunix.ch> Subject: Re: too many open file descriptors messages since bind 9.4.2-P1 (port dns94) Message-ID: <m2skuag4c2.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org> In-Reply-To: <20080715221231.E087C5B46@mail.bitblocks.com> References: <m2tzeqg826.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org> <20080715221231.E087C5B46@mail.bitblocks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:12:31 -0700, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> wrote: > > Besides, I guess that the P1 versions severely suffer from heavy > > overhead of select(2) when it regularly opens more than 1000 sockets. > > Even if 'too many open file' messages are gone, many users won't > > accept the increased load due to the overhead. Beta versions use > > kqueue, eliminating the fundamental overhead as well as the (too low) > > limitation of # of descriptors. > > Or more portably you can use poll(2). I've not played with poll(2) in BIND9, but as far as I understand it, it doesn't solve the fundamental overhead issue here. For example, the application should examine all possible descriptors even if only a few of them are readable. Anyway, since this is a FreeBSD specific list, I believe we can safely assume the existence of kqueue, unless we are talking about a very old version:-) --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m2skuag4c2.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya>