From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758934AbZBZVsm (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:48:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751586AbZBZVsd (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:48:33 -0500 Received: from hpsmtp-eml19.KPNXCHANGE.COM ([213.75.38.84]:1586 "EHLO hpsmtp-eml19.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751491AbZBZVsd (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:48:33 -0500 From: Frans Pop To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.28, rlimits, performance and debian etch Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:48:25 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: libpam-modules@packages.debian.org, debian-admin@lists.debian.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200902262248.26713.elendil@planet.nl> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Feb 2009 21:48:27.0355 (UTC) FILETIME=[F4D0F2B0:01C9985B] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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! I'd appreciate your input where to take this. Cheers, FJP [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477540 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461458