[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090227073032.GG8217@anguilla.noreply.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:30:32 +0100
From: Peter Palfrader <weasel@...ian.org>
To: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, libpam-modules@...kages.debian.org,
debian-admin@...ts.debian.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.28, rlimits, performance and debian etch
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > It has already been mentioned that this does not apply to the upcoming
> > Debian 5.0 release (lenny); this patch is only present in the 4.0
> > release (etch), it was actually fixed in the development series to not
> > use RLIM_INFINITY *because* previous kernels didn't support this and
> > would cause pam_limits to throw log warnings.
>
> I've just migrated my home servers from Debian etch to lenny and bind9 now
> gives me this:
>
> named[17207]: max open files (1024) is smaller than max sockets (4096)
>
> Redhat's BTS [1] tells me this is a kernel issue thatshould be solved [2]
> by the "rlimit: permit setting RLIMIT_NOFILE to RLIM_INFINITY" patch in
> 2.6.28.
>
> One of my servers (DNS slave) is running the standard Debian 2.6.26
> kernel, the other (DNS master) is running 2.6.29-rc6 so that does include
> that patch. But both show the error!
That patch has been reverted for 2.6.29 and 2.6.28.(5 or 6 or so).
--
| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System
| `- http://www.debian.org/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists